I opened this thread because I'm curious to understand the meaning for others of the the words: theist, atheist, agnostic. In short, for me the meanings is this: When asked "Does God Exist?" The theist answer "Yes". The atheist answer "No ". The agnostic answer "I do not know, but before I answer, please define" God" because I do not know exactly what you mean, but then the answer will probably be I do not know." You understand it otherwise? Please do not have a discussion about the existence or not of God, but about the semantics of words theist, atheist, agnostic.
Agnosticism is how much you think the question can be answerable or not. Theism or atheism is which side of the fence you are. And you can be on the fence as well, with varying ideas on how much can be known. So agnosticism is the degree that you think you can know something for certain. You can be heavily agnostic of the ability to know the existence of a deity, but yet still have the belief that that deity does exist. Agnostics are often grouped in with atheists, but they aren't necessarily non-religious.
Can't a dictionary give you a good idea? Being agnostic is just undecided or accepting that it can't be proved either way. Even people who haven't given the question any thought still can place themselves in any of the 3 categories.
How can you have a religious agnostic? Religion is defined as "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" which to me makes the two mutually exclusive.
A person is commonly described as "agnostic" if he is undecided on the question of whether God exists or not. However, this is a popular understanding of the term which is a little different to how it was originally coined. Originally, "agnostic" was an epistomological claim: essentially that there is no way that human beings can ever prove or disprove the existence of God. The question of whether an individual chooses to believe in God or not is a separate issue - one of belief. Thus, it is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. The former chooses to believe in God, while at the same time holding that proof of God's existence is an impossibility. An agnostic atheist takes the same position, except that he or she chooses not to believe in God. Agnosticism is therefore concerned with the possibility of proof, which is a different question to one of belief.
Many also hold there to be different types of atheist, and agnostics... To me atheism is a conscious position taken with regard belief in God, and covers all those who do not believe that God exists, although some of these atheists go further and actually believe that God does not exist. Note the difference between "Not believing God exists" and "Believing God does not exist". They have different meanings, albeit subtle. I also consider atheism to be a conscious decision rather than unconscious - after previous discussions on this matter - to separate those who lack even the concept of "belief" and "God" etc, such as babies, inanimate objects and so forth. Although there are some that say "we are born atheist". Agnosticism (the epistemological position) can similarly be divided on grounds of consideration of how far the "lack of knowledge" of the subject goes. Some agnostics merely hold that they don't have (sufficient) knowledge of the matter, and some go far further and would claim that knowledge of the subject is unknowable. As James R says, the popular understanding of the term is somewhat different. It is thus possible to be, again as James R says, an agnostic theist (someone who follows Pascal's Wager, for example) or an agnostic atheist. I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist... I am an agnostic in that I have no personal knowledge of "God", and for many of these definitions of "God" I hold that God is unknowable. Given my lack of personal knowledge and what I consider to be the unknowability of God, I find that my only rational position with regard "belief" is to not have the belief that God exists. But I can not quite go so far as to believe that God does not exist, although I certainly live my life as though God does not exist. Which leads me to my last point... My understanding of the term "atheist" is that it stemmed initially from the insult from ancient times aimed at those that turned away from the Gods. This turning away was not, from what I understand, necessarily a non-belief in Gods but could also be the action of turning their back on them... i.e. continue to believe that they exist, but to live as though they did not exist, and to reject them. I therefore see this as support for the position on atheism that covers anyone who consciously lives their life with no heed to the existence of God... and this covers not only those that actively believe God does not exist, but also those that simply do not have the belief that they do.
That is how God relates to us, but it is not what God is. Just as, for us, Dywyddyr is a person on sciforums who submits many posts on philosophical matters, but that is not what he is. Anyone who says they understand the nature of God, doesn't know what they are saying. Even St Paul said he knew little about the true nature of God (glass darkly etc), and could be called an agnostic. Plus, people have differences and doubts about how literally different tenets of faith should be taken. Some, in the face of all evidence, believe in a six day creation 8,000 years ago, and others don't. Still others take an agnostic stance. So, you can certainly have religious faith and be an agnostic.
I prefer the common usage of agnostic that relates to indecision on the existence or non-existence of God. In that regard I am a devout agnostic, certain of my uncertainty, decisive in my indecisions, and resolute in my commitment not to reach a conclusion.
It depends on how you phrase the question - if you say "does god exist?" then you leave room for someone to sit on the fence as the question is about an empirical position of knowledge. If you say "do you believe god exists?" there is no room for fence sitting as it is a philosophical yes or no question*, either you do, or you do not, you cannot claim to be both or neither, unless you are a very confused or dishonest individual. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *As Sarkus said, lack of belief and claiming something to not exist are not the same thing.
Ah, got it guys, thanks. An agnostic holds (or rather, doesn't) a position on the "provability" of god, not his existence. That makes sense to me.
Well... I would say "knowability" rather than "provability", as I think there is a semantic difference.
oh ... this "fence sitting" people! Yes, there is a difference between believers(a person who holds a particular belief) and agnostics.This difference is treated here. This thread is open for positioning agnosticism, with power of a representative example. But how agnosticism is more than a concrete position on an issue (in this case the existence or not of God) we can not draw definitive conclusions. I believe that believers and agnostics are on the same "axis" On one side are believers and on the other side are agnostics. The question is where is the middle? These means can vary from person to person but his positioning is important to reach a decision (believer or agnostic) when we can not give a nuanced response.Unlikely the extremes to exist ( pure believer or pure agnostic). So every agnostic has a part (more or less) believer and vice versa, every believer has a part (more or less) agnostic. The example was chosen with care. If I were asked, "Are you religious?" then the answers would be "yes" and "no" , but I think that even our priestess Lori would not answer "yes". If I were asked "Do you believe in God?" then an agnostic would be stopped at "Do you believe ..." and would answer, im sorry but I do not "believe". I taken into consideration the following definition. Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term: "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Meanwhile, as I struggle with writing this post I Google a lot and I've found exactly what I characterize myself. Types of agnosticism . . . Ignosticism The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[19] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth. . . Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out. I can not choose between this two Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why does it feel like some "Militant Atheists" try to force agnostics into feeling stupid for not denying god out-right. To be unsure about god and seeking truth is not a bad thing thats good to be seeking the truth of existence. To try and convert somebody away from god and to speak harshly and foolishly about believers and trying to subtly sway agnistics, this is truly evil. peace.
No one is teaching of unity and hope for eternity, the other speaking of darkness void of life. Do you walk in life or in death? peace.
So according to you it's okay to try and convert somebody to theism and to speak harshly and foolishly about non-believers. But if it happens the other way around it's "truly evil". And all this because of your own personal beliefs.. And I don't appreciate being characterized as "speaking of darkness void of life" just because I don't share your beliefs. I see an irony here..
No you asked what the difference was between the two, I didnt say I supported any kind of harsh words or rudeness. I didn't say anybody in specific, Do you try to convert people in-to atheist? peace/
No, but I know a whole lot of theists that are trying to convert atheists. The other way around.. not so much. Edit: Anyway, I'm being kind of off-topic. Never mind.
@ EmptyForceOfChi Please EmptyForceOfChi, do not turn this discussion about the existence or not of God. The attempt here is to know yourself beyond the existence or not of God.
