Agnostic.com

33 6

Does the term "agnostic atheist" imply that those who self identify as such should accept that it is reasonable for others to hold a belief in God or gods? This does not mean agnostic atheists would be obliged to find the justification given by every theist for their god belief to be reasonable. But we would at least, I think, have to acknowledge the possibility that their private reasons for belief in God or gods are reasonable for them. Do you agree?

MarkWD 7 Mar 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

33 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

6

Atheist/agnostic tend to mind their own business & fervently hope others do the same

I like.

5

I identify as agnostic atheist. Atheist because I do not hold the belief that any gods exist. Agnostic because I accept that it cannot be known whether one does or does not exist. It is not because I think there is a reasonable chance that one, or more than one, does. I see no reason to think that any gods might exist--but, I accept that I will never know.

If someone tells me they believe a god exists, or might exist, I do not draw the conclusion that they do not have the ability to reason. I can understand that to them it is not "reasonable" that all of this just "happened;" but the irony is that they accept that this god or cosmic consciousness has simply always existed--and that just complicates things.

What bothers me is when they try to use science to "prove" what they believe.
Science does not care one way or another; but it does show us that no god/consciousness is necessary for the universe to behave as it does. And, if there were proof, belief/faith would not be necessary.

And, it really bothers me when people not only claim that they "know" there is a god, but also that they "know" the will of this god because it has been revealed to them/humanity either in a holy book, visions, or some other personal experience. This, to me, is NOT reasonable thinking and no matter what one does or says it cannot even be disguised as reasonable thinking.

BTW: this is not to say that "holy" books/writings cannot have words of inspiration and/or wisdom; but, it is human-inspired wisdom--not the wisdom of any god.

"I identify as agnostic atheist. Atheist because I do not hold the belief that any gods exist. Agnostic because I accept that it cannot be known whether one does or does not exist. It is not because I think there is a reasonable chance that one, or more than one, does. I see no reason to think that any gods might exist--but, I accept that I will never know."

I would say the same but then it sort of depends on what someone has in mind by God or gods. Omni-everything, creator of everything, keeper of the ever-after amusement parks? Nope.

"If someone tells me they believe a god exists, or might exist, I do not draw the conclusion that they do not have the ability to reason. I can understand that to them it is not "reasonable" that all of this just "happened;" but the irony is that they accept that this god or cosmic consciousness has simply always existed--and that just complicates things."

This is the essence of my point, that what seems reasonable depends on POV. But neither side has the patent on the gold standard of reasonableness for the reasons we are both agnostic. Of course science is the gold standard for empirical questions. It has earned it. But not every question is empirical in nature, obviously.

"And, it really bothers me when people not only claim that they "know" there is a god, but also that they "know" the will of this god because it has been revealed to them/humanity either in a holy book, visions, or some other personal experience. This, to me, is NOT reasonable thinking and no matter what one does or says it cannot even be disguised as reasonable thinking."

Totally agree. Believers definitely have a dark side. Self serving pronouncements of what their secret friend thinks is part of it. At least some of them don't like the political/church connection, my religious younger brother for one.

"BTW: this is not to say that "holy" books/writings cannot have words of inspiration and/or wisdom; but, it is human-inspired wisdom--not the wisdom of any god."

Of course is is human wisdom, but I to give them their due I suppose it is the human wisdom that arises from humans who feel themselves in relation to and inspired by that deity. Would they have the same insights if they felt themselves to be a bipedal mammal connected only to other humans? Regardless we can point to plenty of inspired writings by nonbelievers and by people who believe in other dieities.

@MarkWD "Of course is is human wisdom, but I to give them their due I suppose it is the human wisdom that arises from humans who feel themselves in relation to and inspired by that deity. Would they have the same insights if they felt themselves to be a bipedal mammal connected only to other humans? Regardless we can point to plenty of inspired writings by nonbelievers and by people who believe in other deities."

Unfortunately, humans do a lot of horrible things because of what they think a deity has told them, inspired them, to do. I think the world would certainly be a better place if everyone realized that there is no "divine wisdom," that we are the makers of our morality and of our gods. When one thinks wisdom/laws/ morality comes from a god, it makes it a lot harder to change for the better and easier to justify the bad--or the downright horrific.

@Joanne I don't disagree but I also don't harbor any illusion that minus religion human stupidity would be no more. People have done shitty things to each other all though history. Doesn't mean I don't also get tired of hearing believers opine about how universal acceptance of Christianity will bring in a new age of good. That is obviously bonkers.

@MarkWD Oh, I agree. We would find ways to justify harming each other, etc. And, we cannot deny that a lot of harm has resulted due to science (learning how to make nuclear bombs, for instance). And, we can see that the industrial revolution, and its aftermath, has been bad for the environment.

But, this does not mean that we should not fight against the negative effects of religions; and work to help people recognize that neither religion, nor a god, is necessary for a person to be good and to do good.

Where we are now as a species, we need to look toward reason and good science if we want to come up with answers to global problems. I don't have a problem with people believing in a god along the way; however, that god, whichever one it is, shouldn't get in the way.

4

Does the term "agnostic atheist" imply that those who self identify as such should accept that it is reasonable for others to hold a belief in God or gods?

No. It doesn't imply that.

Agnostic theism:  Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. 

Apparently I didn't make it clear enough that it isn't reasonable all things considered but only from the perspective of that believer. And I did specify that we wouldn't be obliged to find it reasonable in all cases. Rather, that we just have to admit that it is possible for some one else FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW to form a different conclusion than we do about whether a God exists.

4

I think both agnostics and atheists should feel it is acceptable for people to believe in gods. I'm not sure whether we should think it's reasonable. That's subjective. But live and let live is most important.

I wonder if you could tell me how you're viewing "acceptable" that sets it apart from "reasonable". If I acknowledge that I have no conclusive reason why they should think as I do then it is fine with me for them to hold a different point of view.

@MarkWD There is a difference between what is logical and what is understandable. Religion is not logical but it is understandable given that people are indoctrinated into it from an early age. Your pointing out logical inconsistencies cannot overcome that emotional attachment from family and community that people have to religion. What is really not logical is if you fail to understand this and react with intolerance.

@MarkWD I think lots of things are acceptable that are not reasonable. Perhaps that's because reason is so often a subjective thing. The apostle Paul, for instance, wrote reams about how faith was not only reasonable but a blessed thing to have. We might not think so but I would say his faith is completely acceptable. I'm hardly alone in that.

@brentan this hair might be too fine for me to split. Googling "reasonable" I find:

  1. (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

  2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

Since we are talking about whether a person is being reasonable lets go with #1. The similar words they list for "reasonable" include:
sensible
rational
open to reason
full of common sense
logical
fair
fair-minded
just
equitable
decent
intelligent
wise
levelheaded
practical
realistic
based on good sense
sound
judicious
well thought out
well grounded
reasoned
well reasoned
valid
commonsensical
advisable
well advised
tenable
plausible
feasible
credible
acceptable
admissible
believable
viable
Opposite:
unreasonable
illogical

Logical is in there but so is "open to reason", and I think we both acknowledge that we are unable to provide them with conclusive reasons even if they are open to hearing us try.

I guess I judge a person of faith as being reasonable if I feel they can really hear my reasons for not sharing their belief without becoming defensive or judgmental and can admit that my position too is reasonable.

@MarkWD I don't see how a long list of synonyms removes subjectivity from reason. i agree believers can be very irritating but I was only talking about our attitude to their faith.

@brentan I guess I got caught up in the challenge of splitting reasonable from acceptable. I guess for myself I don't want to be condescending about a person's faith if in all other respects they show themselves to be intelligent, thoughtful and open. For that reason, when confronted by such a believer, I did decide that her belief given her context and her reasons was in fact reasonable. My fondness for the person might have had some influence on that decision. Hard to say.

@MarkWD Yes indeed - there are intelligent Christians out there but the smug judgemental type would drive you up the wall. To use their own wording, I think love covers a multitude of sins and quite often it's the atheist having to use it with the Christian.

@brentan Smug, condescending Christians are the worst and they are numerous. I just don't want to let that drive me into adopting the same attitudes. 😉

4

These terms just add to the division of non believers .Why is this important .As an example, on this site atheists and agnostics bicker over their ideology.This reminds me of the religious clan who think their particular religion is correct and everyone else’s wrong

It is important to me because I am an atheist but prefer when meeting a believer that they not assume that means I will be belligerent, intolerant and hateful toward them.

@MarkWD Why would any of the different variations you mention on non belief mean any thing different to a believer .Believers lump all nonbelievers in one category anyway .They assume you either believe in god or you do not believe in god .These close minded individuals do not care about these sub categories of non belief ,these variations are all basically the same to them .I know first hand from 65 years of being a nonbeliever .After many years of telling a person close to me I am an agnostic they continue calling me an atheist.

@Emanuele It takes some digging but you can find a better class of believers. But the vast horde of believers are as you describe. They don't interest me and I don't really care what they think since they've abdicated that function for the most part. I have the advantage of living in an area where believers don't speak up a lot because they are out numbered. So the ones I find that aren't like you describe are online. Still not easy to find though.

3

The term agnostic atheist is redundant. The agnostic philosophy, named and defined by Thomas Huxley in the nineteenth century, requires empirical evidence for something to be considered true. Huxley said that since there is no evidence either for the existence of god(s) or against that existence, it is not possible to know whether god(s) exist. In other words agnostics do not believe in god(s). In fact, we do not believe in anything, but require evidence for truth. Modern atheists (at least in Canada) say they do not believe in god(s) in contrast to traditional atheists who claim that there are no god(s). Agnostics, then, are the same as modern atheists except that we extend our philosophy to include all knowledge rather than limiting it to the question of the existence of god(s). Of course, as a Secular Humanist, I am not concerned about whether someone believes in god(s) or not as long as that person does not try to interfere with my right to freedom from religion, and does not use belief as an excuse to harm others.

👏👏Yes 👌

3

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this: Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:

Agnostic: We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: agnostic (without knowledge)

Atheist: There ain't no all-powerful invisible critters fucking with humans on the earth: atheist (there is no reliable proof of such beings)

And, I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

3

No. My lack of belief is based on a lack of evidence for a god or gods. The agnostic qualifier only means I am open to changing my position should sufficient evidence be presented. The opposite is not true since an agnostic theist's beliefs are not based on evidence. Their strongest argument is likely Pascal's wager, which can be refuted by logic easily.

3

No. I don't see why claiming a specific status yourself means that you accept certain things about others.

3

In reality it means what ever the person who says they are, intends it to mean. The catagories have no rules. If you talk to ten people who identify as such, you will get ten different meanings of what an agnostic atheist is. Labels are very misleading at times and this is one of them.

Exactly. Definitions should be the starting point, not the end point, of any discussion.

3

I’m afraid I cannot follow your thread of thought. What exactly is an “agnostic atheist” in your mind? My definition is that it means someone who holds the view that there is no deity or god (atheist), and who also believes that the existence of a deity or god is unknowable in either principle or fact (agnostic). I’m pretty sure most people who believe in god think it’s reasonable to do so, that doesn’t mean though that I have to agree. In fact I don’t feel I have to justify my reasons for not believing to those who believe in god, and nor do I ask them to justify theirs.

You asked: "What exactly is an “agnostic atheist” in your mind? My definition is that it means someone who holds the view that there is no deity or god (atheist), and who also believes that the existence of a deity or god is unknowable in either principle or fact (agnostic)."

Yes we define it in different ways. I don't see atheism as having any defining characteristic apart from lacking belief in gods. Holding a positive belief that no gods exist is something more than just atheism. My atheism stems from my not sharing belief in any gods.

You said: "I’m pretty sure most people who believe in god think it’s reasonable to do so, that doesn’t mean though that I have to agree."

And I made no comment on that. I only said it is reasonable for people to believe things which I don't if they have reasons I don't share. What is it reasonable for people to want or hope for? I'm just saying it is reasonable that people will want and hope for different things than I do. I do not define what is reasonable for all of mankind based solely on my own experience.

@MarkWD I must correct you, I did not say that I had a belief that no gods exist, but that I have a view that no god or gods exist, that view is based entirely on never being convinced by any argument for god’s existence, because it’s not logical to believe something without any evidence. Atheism is not a belief it’s quite the reverse of a belief, it’s in fact a disbelief...one simply cannot believe in disbelief, that is oxymoronic. Nor can a person be a believer and a disbeliever simultaneously as they are antonyms of each other,

@Marionville sorry if I mischaracterized what you said. But I admit my person who holds "a positive belief that no gods exist" does seem pretty equivalent to your "someone who holds the view that there is no deity or god" to my way of thinking. I suppose that just goes to show how poor a medium words can be for conveying meaning.

@MarkWD Yes..sometimes they can carry an ambiguity,.

2

Does the term "agnostic atheist" imply that those who self identify as such should accept that it is reasonable for others to hold a belief in God or gods?

No.
If the believer claims it is reasonable, then the believer needs to present the evidence as to why they believe it is reasonable, and it is doubtful that such a rationale would meet my standards for evidence.

"But we would at least, I think, have to acknowledge the possibility that their private reasons for belief in God or gods are reasonable for them."
A junkie finds it perfectly reasonalbe to inject Heroin.
I disagree vehemetly.

Same thing here.

2

Agnostic Athiest, by conflating these terms lets simply conflate the definations.

Agnostic - does not have direct knowledge of what a God thingie is or it's existing and says it could never be known.

Atheist - says it is false that purported God thingies exist.

Agnostic athiest - does not have direct knowledge of what a God thingie is or it's existing and says it could never be known so they say it is false that porported God thingies exist.

Agnostic basicly illogical for claim of "...it could never be known". If all powerfull God thingies did infact exist out side of the knowing of monkey people then decided to let their all powerfulness be known to less-than-all powerfull monkey people it would be at the decression of the all powerfulness and not at the demand or dictate of monkey people. "it could never be know" would then be a non-verfiable claim itself and rather illogical.

Atheist basicly illogical by defination for claim of "false" to all possibly purported God thingies for without knowing. Personal incredubility - Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

example: It is not always easy for people to imagine infinity of space in every direction. Some people believe in the scientific space-time bubble that is creating space pushing back anti-space that is out side of the space time bubble, in every direction.

Word Level 8 Mar 24, 2020

"Agnostic - does not have direct knowledge of what a God thingie is or it's existing and says it could never be known.

Atheist - says it is false that purported God thingies exist.

Agnostic athiest - does not have direct knowledge of what a God thingie is or it's existing and says it could never be known so they say it is false that porported God thingies exist.

Agnostic basicly illogical for claim of "...it could never be known"."

But course you are applying the strong definitions of agnosticism and atheism. An agnostic need not hold the position that it can never be known; a mere admitting that they cannot see how it could be known (soft or weak agnosticism) still gets one in the agnostic club.

Likewise an atheist need not take the position that no gods can exist. It is enough to admit that you at least harbor belief in no such thing (soft or weak atheism). No pronouncement about these poorly defined "god thingies" need be included to get you in the atheist club.

I'd say I'm an agnostic atheist, both in the weak sense. I would never claim to know the status of anything so poorly defined as "god thingies". I'm so stealing your terminology.

@MarkWD STRONG week POTATO potato TOMATO tomato. This is how I see the strong week discussion.

I will make this point that I understand early Christians were called atheist because they didn't worship the Roman God thingies. Words can have different meanings at different times for different people.

What I think I see or understand going on: Any one that is theist would see any atheist as an atheist strong, week doesn't matter. A duck is a duck is a duck.

Have you ever heard of a soft theist? Almost funny to me as I find it sounding to me just now as I come up with it. I have understood some Christians might consider themselves what could be given term soft theist but in churchy terms they might be considered to of done a "back slide", going back to those worldly ways. What I mean by this is they hold their belief that Jesus exist as a type of God thingie that Is out of their knowing of how everything works in this "kingdom of God" but they are still human animals that makes mistakes or smokes cigarettes, or even uses a cuss word or two every now and then. Church officials may not be accepting of them because they do not follow some of these modern "churchy norms". Many of these 'soft theist' may rarely every go to church, much less give tithe and offerings to the church.

So here's my point, wheither strong or week, hard or soft, is an atheist not still an atheist and a theist not still a theist?

I often think a term could be made up that would be more appropriate for many Atheist and agnostics.

There are those that want to remain logical and not make a claim but they beat all around they bush with terminology and giving different definations trying to say "i really think in my private thoughts that no god thingies exist, but I am not going to say it out of my mouth as a claim". However on the other hand, Here is a defination that might could use a word for it that is Almost agnostic but basicly omits the strong illogical claim of "it could never be known that god thingies exist".

Within the one's knowledge, a God thingie is not known or understood to exist and one would NOT say something along the lines of "it is impossible for an all-powerful God thingie to slap the ever-living shit out of them", because it would be illogical for someone to say it is impossible for any all-powerful to do anything. And so on, they could have their personal experience proof because they do not see a reason in their life to have any God thingie experiences. The current list of purported God thingies does not appeal to them to give any worship, recognition, praise, money, so on so for. HOWEVER, if someone else had a real existant God thingie that works for them and doesn't impose or force things on the one(s) not interested in God thingies, then it is perfectly possible that God thingies really do exist and only reveal themselves to those that have true interest. (got to come back and edit for clarity on this last part, i already know, but got to send reply and go for now)

@MarkWD I really don't claim "god thingie" as my terminology. I have heard about all kinds of thingies, thing-a-ma-bobs, whatchmacallits, do-hickies, widgets and such all my life. I just so happen to put the word "God" with thingie in such manner.

@Word your post inspired me to google "soft theist" where I found this interesting article on Patheos: [patheos.com]

Some excerpts:

"Now, I’m a soft theist.

..

I don’t see god/goddess as personal. I don’t believe that deities answer our prayers or intervene in the world on our behalf or otherwise. I don’t accept that such beings exist, because I have no evidence that they do, nothing to appeal to that confirms their reality"

"Soft Theism operates from the vantage point of spiritual realism – an epistemological conservatism that humbly seeks to understand reality and tries to offer some explanation for events and circumstances. Honest living offers ample experiences of tragedy, unmerited suffering, random and superfluous evil that tempers any inclination to lofty, unjustified saccharine theologies."

"From the perspective of Soft Theism, the lack of evidence for interventionist gods and goddesses doesn’t require that we completely eliminate all notions of God and deity. Soft Theism understands the multivalent values of employing a god/goddess concept."

I find it interesting but I'm not in the market for a new descriptor so I'm not ready to buy..

@MarkWD thinking of my post I said needed edit for clarity, I'll just continue and try to clearify the thought here. I think it goes along with your find of soft theist.

I have in past post and other discussion comments explained how biblical text says the people are gods. A person would not fit the definition of an all powerful God thingie but still people considered and accepted as gods. If you understand all powerful and consider 2 all powerful at the same time and place it would not seem to be logically possible. 2 all powerful fight against each other. Both should over power the other contradicts. Logically there can be only one all powerful at the same place and time. People being many would not be the all powerful style of a God thingie but they are considered gods. Lesser style of gods. People exist, people are considered gods, gods exist.

I have explained this to hard atheist that completely reject any possible acceptance of labeling a person as a God thingie. They say a true God thingie is like Harry Potter style or greater in supernatural capabilities. It is not scientificly verfied and freely published and publicly known if anyone is Harry Potter style or greater of capabilities.

Anyhow, having written those 2 paragraphs thinking it sets a stage for saying: If a person accepts people being labeled as God thingies then by defination that person would be a theist. This theist is not specifically worshiping people as it is often considered a requirement if a person is a theist. Theist defined simply as accept it as true that god(s) exist.

What then could a person be labeled if they can accept that people label other people as God thingies but that person themselves is not into labeling or worshiping rock stars, movie stars, movie stars as Gods etc. ?

For a person labeling themselves as atheist or agnostic it would not be logical or common word defination usage to say, "I can accept that things are labelled as God thingies and those God thingie so labeled do in fact exist, however, it is not my interest in giving worship, etc. To someone elses labeled God thingie."

Could this be called a theist that is non-participant in common theism activities, worship etc?

I am soft theist in regards to people being labeled as God thingies that exist. I am soft agnostic as to Harry Potter style God people existing, i have no knowledge of such Harry Potter style God people existing but I would not say "I could never know if a Harry Potter style God exist".

@Word All those suggestions of envisioning Harry Potter style magic beings or Pharaoh styled deities still insist on imagining a concrete God assuming a place in our empirical world. I don't believe the soft theist thinks any such thing exists. The Other that the soft theist embraces is something relational within the person himself. No, not himself. But something elusive within consciousness which is different than ones imagination.

I think what Iain McGilchrist writes about in his book The Master and His Emissary about the relations between the rational mind and the intuitive mind comes close. Consciously we engage the world through our rational mind, but some of us at leasts recognize the occasional contributions of our intuitive mind. I suspect it is this bifurcation in consciousness which has made god belief possible and the metaphors of religion engaging. But no gods understood as independent, external, centralized beings exist.

@MarkWD I had a recent discussion where I brought up slime mold cognition of a "brainless mind". Something I consider is moving away from the use of the term "god" and consider the possibility of a cognition capability being on or in the kinetic energy environment of the Earth's atmosphere.

I would have to look for my previous comment on the other post from a few weeks ago but I consider speculations that might make for a point to explore the possibility that like the brainless mind of the slime mold or something like the interaction of the fungi with the zombie ant fungi. parasitic cognition connection to other bodies of cognition. Then, those that experienced such cognition experiences being "goat hearders" and not scientist make hyperbole or give incorrect attributes to their experience of something that then becomes to be called "God".

2

Very good question! The term "agnostic atheist," to me means that I'm open to any possibility. To say that there absolutely isn't something is the same as saying there absolutely is. But the difference is that the agnostic has looked at the evidence and has determined that the "probability" is very small there is something. But the believer is going on something else, intuition, indoctrination, convoluted reasoning, anecdotal evidence, even fear. To answer your question, however, is the agnostic atheist obliged to find those beliefs "reasonable," I would have to say no.

I probably should have said "obliged to find those beliefs "reasonable" - from the POV of the believer, given their life experience and so forth. I definitely didn't mean reasonable for everyone.

2

I don’t think a person identitying as such makes any statement about any person other than that person.

2

I always put it like this. "I don't know whether a god exists(agnostic), but there is no reason for me to make that presumption(atheistic). Agnosticism addresses knowledge and atheism addresses belief, and they are not mutually exclusive.

2

You lookin for points, trouble, or cheap entertainment 🙂No Comment

Varn Level 8 Mar 23, 2020

"D" 4th answer in multiple choice questions.🙄

1

Reason Is an Individuals perspective on how to judge the process of their personal logic. When you claim to just be atheist you dismiss their to be enough evidence therefore you cannot process their logic. Agnostic atheist are similar because we cannot reason with those ideas but you said " if it's reasonable for them?" I cannot disprove people who also claim say aliens will come back for us because we are just an experiment. I have no interest in disproving them because its not reasonable for my personal sanity in trying to disprove someone's belief because my own belief is aligned towards atheism but I also don't have enough evidence to disprove their higher power to my idea of an "infinte" higher power because we are unable to comprehend by are humanist way of thinking. God is a made up word of what humans seem to explain the existence of our being but it is just a word that gives humanistic traits to a powerful entity. That is unreasonable for me but YOU are right their private reason for their belief in god(s) is reasonable for them.

"God is a made up word of what humans seem to explain the existence of our being but it is just a word that gives humanistic traits to a powerful entity."

I suppose if we think about it at all it is hard not to hypothesize what motivates people's beliefs which would be unreasonable by our own standards. I do it too. I tend to think belief in literal gods is mostly inherited by way of culture. Of course cultures also have a beginning so sometimes I wonder what in the world could have motivated the leap to god belief. My best guess is that once people started recognizing and looking for the intentions of others it wouldn't be too great a leap to look for intentionality in all manner of natural phenomenon. But the structure of consciousness with part in our awareness but most of it not could also have contributed to it. But of course the idea of gods as unified external beings does not jive with our notion of the natural world, and I for one have no use for a supernatural category.

"That is unreasonable for me but YOU are right their private reason for their belief in god(s) is reasonable for them."

You and I are applying the term "reasonable" in the same way. But apparently some think what counts as reasonable should be independent of personal circumstances and perspective. I think that is too black and white.

1

I am not in the world to hold judgments about others beliefs... I disagree with many.. but am only responsible for mine.. and am somewhat friendly to some religious quackery....

blzjz Level 7 Mar 24, 2020

Me too. I have much respect for theists who will own their share of agnosticism.

1

There are no valid reasons for anyone to hold a belief in gods of any kind.

1

Freedom of belief, no probs.
Religions just need to acknowledge that their rites are not rights if they infringe on others freedom to believe what they will. The rite of indoctrinating youth into any belief system is directly opposing freedom of belief for all.

1

In all the writings I have seen regarding atheism, one thing is certain. Reason does not permit the illogical assumptions of theists. The burden of proof is on the theist for asserting the existence of the unproven assumption. While I do not normally quote Ayn Rand, I assert that her dealings with religion and faith are some of the clearest works ever written. In addition George Smith in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" clearly explains why the wishy-washy concept of agnosticism has no validity when trying to link it with atheism. It is not about intolerance that such a view is promulgated. A is A. A chair is not a flamingo, faith is not equivalent of reason. It is intolerance to dismiss an irrational belief.

@FrankA Wrong,

A (not) + theist (person that believes a god exists) = atheist. It is that simple.

atheist lacks a belief in a god

IS NOT THE SAME AS

atheist believes ". . . ""belief" that no gods exist" there is no god."

When you redefine atheist with a belief no god exists you shift the positive burden of proof to the atheist. This why theists define atheist with your quote.

Agnostic does not address if you do or do not BELIEVE a god exists.

Agnostic addresses the assertion that knowledge of a god can be known.

You can have agnostic theists.

@FrankA "I ask you...have you ever known a person who describes him/herself as "atheist" who does NOT "believe" there are no gods."

Yes.

Almost every atheist I know (including myself) holds that position.
The beginning of this video clearly states my (and those I know) position.

I LACK A BELIEF IN A GOD. As I stated earlier this is difference then asserting then asserting "they "Beleive" there is no god". I lack a belief. I do not believe there is no god. This is more then semantics.

To get a better understanding of this position and your confusion of atheist relationship to agnostic
spend a few minutes and watch this video.

@FrankA Also, the use of "a" in atheist regardless of chronological word evolution has and does work. Read this link and discover your "IT DOESN'T...AND NEVER HAS" is less then honest. It works and clearly and correctly follows the rules. [dictionary.com]

@FrankA Sorry you demonstrate the inability to understand the difference.

Your assertion that I am kidding myself is profoundly ignorant on your behalf.

Your assertion that I am "spout bullshit" is a classic case of psychological projection.

I take it by the your response you were unwilling or unable to follow (or comprehend) the links.

This is sad.

To an atheist, belief is irrelevant. There are no deities. It is not that there is any "belief", because the position of an atheist is not one of belief. It is a position arrived at by virtue of reason. If one choses to say "I don't know", that is fine. That does not change the fact that agnosticism sets aside reason in order to be cautious or afraid to utilize reason on this topic. Atheism is not a belief but the default position of existence. This does not mean that that one puts down an agnostic for their views. Often most atheists get to their philisophical position via agnosticism. It is part of the journey to atheism which can be very difficult for some people.

@Krez-Kiin I can see what you mean, but there are some agnostics who see the ontology of what some others consider "deities" to be variable. An existence in ontology doesn't imply an existence in fact. Then there is what "belief" pans out as - in some cases not being under tyranny (though since recently, religious authorities have mostly wanted to turn it into tyranny). Both these points are independent of whether it matters (which it does in some cases and doesn't in others). And there may be some agnostics who set aside reason or are afraid to use it but that's not compulsory for us. Like Russell says he can call himself a straight atheist forthrightly. Descriptions allude, they don't paint anyone into corners. That IS why atheism is "default position of existence". I wouldn't know what anyone else's beliefs really are, but if they got pushy I would probably see if they are different from what they say.

1

So if people know that I am an atheist in my community, call me an atheist and define me as an atheist (usually erroneously and often hilariously so), then does that mean I am no longer just self identifying as an atheist but the real deal?
On the topic of it being reasonable to accept a childlike delusion such as the belief in an angry old man in the sky who watches over everything and is all powerful, well that's a bit of a contradiction to me. How can something so unreasonable be accepted as being reasonable? Maybe if I were to treat it as a child's imaginary friend phase, something they might ultimately grow out of, that level of acceptance I think is reasonable. However, having adults continue to hold onto such delusional thoughts and often thoughts which inspire hatred, hypocrisy and oppression of others, that to me is not acceptable at all. It is unreasonable to accept such a destructive way of thinking but I don't actively attack it unless called upon to defend myself and my liberty from these delusional god believers.
I'm an Atheist, proud of it and very public about it if asked. Wouldn't it be nice if god believers were even this accepting of Atheists?

What you find unacceptable is their distorting as pretext for hatred and oppression towards others. Their bad for distorting, dishonesty and oppressing. Not its.

1

No.

1

It implies that I get a headache thinking about it and trying to figure it out…

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:474484
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.