I'm pretty happy with the idea of a more genuine attempt at the separation of church and state. Less personal feeling in policy making.
Though I should come clean and say that I dont live in the country in question.
Pretty much this. I don't care if religious belief lasts until the sun burns out, but I'd love to see religious belief kept personal, or at least confined to the individual communities of believers.
No more social policy, education, or anything else based on people's religious ideas would leave me perfectly satisfied, and would solve pretty much the entirety of my problem with religion.
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
Yep. You can move from theism to weak atheism if, for example, you recognize that (a) your belief in a god isn't based on any tangible evidence, (b) you generally base your positive belief in things on evidence, and (c) you apply this rational skepticism to your belief in a god.
Narratively, "I used to believe in God primarily because I was raised and taught to believe in God. However, normally I don't believe in things like UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, fairies, etc. unless and until someone shows me actual, credible evidence that they exist. That doesn't mean they DON'T exist, of course, but I just don't believe they exist. At some point, I realized that my belief in God was getting a free pass from my normal healthy skepticism for no good reason. Once I realized that I had no credible evidence that God exists, I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe in God any more than in Santa Clause. Now, I don't believe in God. Doesn't mean it's impossible that there is a God; I just don't believe in him until I see some credible evidence."
EDIT - I meant "Yep." It is possible to move from theism to weak atheism.
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
I don't know that my body won't slide straight through the matter in my chair when I go to sit down.
I'm pretty damn sure it won't. Does that make me an insubstantial-chair-strong-atheist? Or agnostic?
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
I gotta say -- that's pretty terrible. Making her believe that 'daddy is bad' isn't a bit different than your brainwashing her to believe that 'mommy is stupid'.
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
The short answer is yes.
Strong atheism isn't strictly supportable without a collection of caveats.
I wouldn't mind the long answer.
As far as I can see it, once you have ALREADY been a theist, the only options open to you are either agnosticism or strong atheism. Short of some kind of traumatic memory loss, of course, that removes the entire concept of a god from your mind.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
It sounds like what you're calling agnosticism is what I would call weak atheism.
Podly, I'll let others engage you on the content of your metaphysics argument, but one question that's been burning for me since an earlier post you made in this thread:
So, I don't think I understand your rationale for God's existence, but I'll grant the possibility that this may be because I don't have the prerequisite knowledge in philosophy, vocabulary, etc.
But I am fascinated that you choose to label yourself a Catholic. Obviously, most Catholics did not come to accept Catholicism for the same reasons you do, as they too have not had any exposure to Heidegger et al. You must be an incredibly small minority among people who call themselves "Catholic."
So, I obviously don't know anything about how you personally practice religion, but I assume that it involves interacting with other Catholics in one way or another. Do you find this difficult? Does it trouble you that most of the people who adhere to your religion do not out of rigorous philosophical inquiry but out of habit and/or fear of damnation?
Speaking of damnation... do you have a similar metaphysical argument for existence of hell? or of the validity of the Bible? The trinity? The historical existence of Jesus Christ who died and was re-born and gave humans a pathway to eternal happiness?
You see where I'm going with this... calling yourself a "Catholic" implies a whole list of beliefs that don't seem to logically follow from the metaphysical argument. How do you reconcile this, both personally and in interacting with other religious folk?
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
I gotta say -- that's pretty terrible. Making her believe that 'daddy is bad' isn't a bit different than your brainwashing her to believe that 'mommy is stupid'.
I do believe he's "brainwashing" her to believe that 'god is imaginary.'
Well, if we pursue the question of Being, we find that it is omnipresent (there can be no beings where there is not Being) omnipotent (there can be no beings that are not "presenced" in Being) omniscient (nothing can be true unless it IS true) and infinite (wherever there is beings there is Being, but we can never know whether there is Being without beings.
Earlier I tried to define Being thusly:
Being is largely undefinable, but can perhaps be defined as "the opposite of nothingness"
Operating from this definition, which admittedly could be faulty, I don't see how it is proper to attribute qualities like omniscience, which further requires sapience, to what is merely "the opposite of nothingness."
Derrida has a concept of erasure, whereby things can only be discussed if a master word is put under erasure and never defined. Being is not a being, can take no predicates, etc. The only proper way to speak about being in this way is to say [strike]Being[/strike[/i] whereby you do not actually say it, but simultaneously you are saying something. I don't like to speak of Being in terms of predication, i.e., Being is the opposite of reality, because that means that Nothingess is the opposite of Being, which cannot be true because Nothingness cannot BE anything.
That sounds to me like you're saying that Being can't BE anything; you can't say "Being is X" or "Being is Y", or "Being is omniscient" or "Being is sapient."
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
It strikes me as trying to define the world in one's own terms so that one's knowledge set can be the primary method of understanding.
Like if a carpenter tried to define the universe as a construction project.
that's metaphor, which is rather different
I did not mean in metaphor.
Then you haven't "understood" anything, you're just covering holes in your knowledge with something different that a supreme being.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
Qingu, your most recent posts makes a number of valid points. I am primarily interested in ontology, and I see two ways of speaking about it effectively: 1)phenomenologically, and 2) historically/hermeneutically. The first is obvious: we see how humans, more specifically, a self, interacts with the beings of Being and the Being of beings. The latter is more complex, obtuse, and abstract. It deals with a less structural and analytic approach, which means that it is more roundabout. It is circular, but I would argue not a vicious circle, that it is a slinky progressing forward. The phenomenological method puts the cart before the horse, and the historical method works well only for those who already believe that the ontological difference is a problem.
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
Well, I consider myself an atheist but if one had to be technical about it, my views are that of an agnostic on the verge of atheism.
A theist believes in a God. As in 100% definitely.
An atheist then, I perceive as being the opposite -- there is no God, 100% definitely.
An agnostic is everything in between.
Well, I can't say 100% there's no God. I can't really disprove much. For example, I can't disprove unicorns aren't prancing about this country, and are just really good at hiding. I just see no reason to believe they do. So technically, I'm agnostic about unicorns too, right?
Santa Claus? Maybe he's real and uses mind-control beams on parents after giving out presents so they think they gave them out. I can make up all sorts of sci-fi explanations to make absurd sounding things possible. I just don't because it's a pointless tangent with no link to reality. If reality gives you absolutely no indication that something is real, asks no question that the something could answer, I just don't see a reason to be believing in it.
Where did mankind come from? Where did the Universe come from? Where did morality come from? I think I can answer any of these questions with simpler explanations than a God.
God is a supernatural being, and I haven't seen any phenomena to indicate there is one. Bushes may have burned unnecessarily long 2000 years ago but they've been strangely absent since then. I go through my daily routine seeing no evidence of a supernatural existence.
But even with all that -- I can't disprove God exists. Maybe he's just been asleep for the last 10 billion years and hasn't noticed our existence yet. Can I disprove that? No.
@Monolithic, I believe Podly admitted that he takes Catholic dogma on "faith" as opposed to reasoning out the metaphysics, and chose Catholicism out of all possible religions basically out of somewhat arbitrary personal preference: it's not as "paternalistic" as Islam, for example.
@Monolithic, I believe Podly admitted that he takes Catholic dogma on "faith" as opposed to reasoning out the metaphysics, and chose Catholicism out of all possible religions basically out of somewhat arbitrary personal preference: it's not as "paternalistic" as Islam, for example.
strange to say that catholicism is not paternalistic, when the preachers are called "father", and the head of the whole shebang is called "papa"
As far as I can see it, once you have ALREADY been a theist, the only options open to you are either agnosticism or strong atheism. Short of some kind of traumatic memory loss, of course, that removes the entire concept of a god from your mind.
Nobody in any culture I know of, not even the people who call themselves agnostics, have no concept of a deity. Most people have -many- concepts of a deity. They just do not assume they exist due to a lack of evidence. We all get concepts of deities from art and history and people around us and shit we make up ourselves. I used to be weakly polytheistic, myself. I would make requests of both the Abrahamic Deity and Bast (I was reaaaaally into Egyptian mythology), though I would never treat it as worship, but more like asking a neighbor for help. I eventually stopped doing so for lack of evidence when I challenged them to show me some. I still accept the possibility of SOME concept(s) of deity being true, while others I mark as impossible so long as logic is an accurate representation of the universe (the mentioned caveat).
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
It strikes me as trying to define the world in one's own terms so that one's knowledge set can be the primary method of understanding.
Like if a carpenter tried to define the universe as a construction project.
that's metaphor, which is rather different
I did not mean in metaphor.
Then you haven't "understood" anything, you're just covering holes in your knowledge with something different that a supreme being.
The first is obvious: we see how humans, more specifically, a self, interacts with the beings of Being and the Being of beings.
Translation: observers interact with stuff they observe. They also interact with the fact that are capable of observing and thus exist.
The latter is more complex, obtuse, and abstract. It deals with a less structural and analytic approach, which means that it is more roundabout. It is circular, but I would argue not a vicious circle, that it is a slinky progressing forward.
Translation, and clarification: everyone assumes they exist. This is a starting assumption upon which all of our knowledge and experience is built. You can't use something observed or proven based on this assumption to prove that the assumption is true. But the alternative—assuming we don't exist—is pointless.
The phenomenological method puts the cart before the horse,
Not within the "circle." i.e. not in the realm derived from the starting assumption that I exist.
and the historical method works well only for those who already believe that the ontological difference is a problem.
It doesn't work at all. It's circular. It's just a fancy way of restating the initial assumption and dressing it up to make it look like something other than an axiom.
it seems to me sometimes that many people use "weak atheism" to mean what agnosticism already means. I'm trying to figure out where the line is drawn.
I mean, I do not believe in god, but I would by no means call myself an atheist, as I do not disbelieve in god either.
Agnostic and weak atheism do not have a strict line.
The closest would be that an agnostic might have a nagging suspicion. But mostly the two words mean the same thing, BUT have different cultural responses.
Like calling someone "Woman" or "Adult Female Human."
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
That sounds to me like you're saying that Being can't BE anything; you can't say "Being is X" or "Being is Y", or "Being is omniscient" or "Being is sapient."
Correct, which is why early I said that it should be more probably stated "omniscience is Being" and "omnipresence is Being."
@Mono_Dome: being part of any community gives that experience. Devout Catholics hate that people are only catholic on sunday, etc. So, no, it does not both me in the slightest. For the part about damnation, the Catholic church rejects belief which is based solely on either reason or faith, and always asks its believers to have both faith and reasons for believing in Jesus and the Church, so that's somewhat comforting. I don't really believe in Hell, that the Bible in infallible, etc. The most important part of being a Catholic, I think, is ritual nature of it. For catholicism, praxis is even more important than belief. Someone who had very little faith who nevertheless went to church and confession might in fact be a "better" catholic than someone who believed in those things but never went through with the sacraments.
I guess I just feel like the word "atheism" has seen a lot of creep towards other definitions.
Like I said, I'm not an atheist, and I don't thing most strong atheists would really want to count me in their fold, yet I fit under some of the definitions that people like to throw out there (I'm assuming, in order to make them feel like they're not alone.)
It opens another very interesting question as well, though. If it is okay for an atheist to be not entirely certain that God doesn't exist, why do some people here think that all theists must be certain in the existance of their gods?
I always thought the main difference was in how accepting of the possibilty of god you are.
Like, a weak atheist says "I haven't seen evidence of god, so I don't believe in him," vs. the agnostic who says "I haven't seen any evidence of god, so who knows."
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I guess I just feel like the word "atheism" has seen a lot of creep towards other definitions.
Like I said, I'm not an atheist, and I don't thing most strong atheists would really want to count me in their fold, yet I fit under some of the definitions that people like to throw out there (I'm assuming, in order to make them feel like they're not alone.)
It opens another very interesting question as well, though. If it is okay for an atheist to be not entirely certain that God doesn't exist, why do some people here think that all theists must be certain in the existance of their gods?
Language has a funny way of picking up additional associations.
See: Liberal/Conservative.
As for theism and certainty, it's a positive assertion.
I won't argue that the usage of the terms vary wildly.
Can we agree that it is beneficial to be able to discuss theological stances separately from epistemological stances? If yes, then I submit that my usage of the terms is helpful and the others uses I have seen are not.
I always thought the main difference was in how accepting of the possibilty of god you are.
Like, a weak atheist says "I haven't seen evidence of god, so I don't believe in him," vs. the agnostic who says "I haven't seen any evidence of god, so who knows."
people always seem to gloss over the fact that there are THREE different states of belief in god, not two. It is a TRINARY propisition
0 - no belief
1 - belief that there is a god
2 - belief that there is no god
Theist: Someone who believes there is a god(s).
Atheists: Someone who believes there is no god.
Gnostic: Someone who is sure in their belief.
Agnostic: Someone who is is not 100% sure in their belief.
I guess I just feel like the word "atheism" has seen a lot of creep towards other definitions.
Do you believe in fairies?
Do you believe that you will fall through the matter of your chair when you go to sit down?
Like I said, I'm not an atheist,
You are in the exact same sense that I am.
It opens another very interesting question as well, though. If it is okay for an atheist to be not entirely certain that God doesn't exist, why do some people here think that all theists must be certain in the existance of their gods?
Because there are functional differences that come from the relative certainty of said beliefs.
I'm pretty sure no gods exist. Thus, I do not construct hecatombs to Zeus. I do not pray to Jesus for forgiveness. I do not submit to Allah.
A Christian may not be 100% certain that Yahweh exists, but he is certain enough to modify his behavior accordingly—for example, by praying to Jesus for forgiveness, by attempting to follow Yahweh's commandments, etc.
I guess I just feel like the word "atheism" has seen a lot of creep towards other definitions.
Like I said, I'm not an atheist, and I don't thing most strong atheists would really want to count me in their fold, yet I fit under some of the definitions that people like to throw out there (I'm assuming, in order to make them feel like they're not alone.)
It opens another very interesting question as well, though. If it is okay for an atheist to be not entirely certain that God doesn't exist, why do some people here think that all theists must be certain in the existance of their gods?
Language has a funny way of picking up additional associations.
See: Liberal/Conservative.
As for theism and certainty, it's a positive assertion.
positive assertions aren't always all or nothing, though.
"I think that there might be a god" is a positive assertion, but it's still at half mast.
I always thought the main difference was in how accepting of the possibilty of god you are.
Like, a weak atheist says "I haven't seen evidence of god, so I don't believe in him," vs. the agnostic who says "I haven't seen any evidence of god, so who knows."
people always seem to gloss over the fact that there are THREE different states of belief in god, not two. It is a TRINARY propisition
0 - no belief
1 - belief that there is a god
2 - belief that there is no god
The fun thing about the way humans work is that a single person can encompass all three. We are amazingly adept at functioning under contradiction.
I guess I just feel like the word "atheism" has seen a lot of creep towards other definitions.
Like I said, I'm not an atheist, and I don't thing most strong atheists would really want to count me in their fold, yet I fit under some of the definitions that people like to throw out there (I'm assuming, in order to make them feel like they're not alone.)
It opens another very interesting question as well, though. If it is okay for an atheist to be not entirely certain that God doesn't exist, why do some people here think that all theists must be certain in the existance of their gods?
Uh, well, that could be one explanation. The other explanation is, you know, atheism for many people means a-theism. A lack of theism. It includes everyone who claims a strong belief that God does not exist, to the agnostic who does not believe in God, but doesn't disbelieve in him either, to the baby who has no concept of a deity.
I prefer to define atheism a little more strongly than that - namely, the understanding that there is a concept of God and that you do not believe in it because you don't think there's sufficient evidence to, and you live your life under the assumption that God does not exist.
Theist: Someone who believes there is a god(s).
Atheists: Someone who believes there is no god.
Gnostic: Someone who is sure in their belief.
Agnostic: Someone who is is not 100% sure in their belief.
It's not a 1D scale, it's a 2D scale.
agnostic has absolutely had some definition creep as well.
the problem, in my mind, is that we have no word for the 0 state I posted above. some one who does not believe or disbelieve.
Many atheists want to claim these people, but I do not think that they really count as atheists.
Ironically, it was the church which originally labled these people as atheists, because they were only concerned with people who DID believe, so everyone else was the same to them.
atheism for many people means a-theism. A lack of theism.
If you'll indulge me in a genetic fallacy of my own, atheism is actually a-theos-ism. As prefixes are applied before suffixes, atheism is actually the ism of a lack of theos.
I understand why people would shift the definition over time, but considering that one word is being used to refer to two distinct groups, who are NOT necessarily unified in their goals, I think the creeping definition does our discourse a disservice.
Posts
Pretty much this. I don't care if religious belief lasts until the sun burns out, but I'd love to see religious belief kept personal, or at least confined to the individual communities of believers.
No more social policy, education, or anything else based on people's religious ideas would leave me perfectly satisfied, and would solve pretty much the entirety of my problem with religion.
Yep. You can move from theism to weak atheism if, for example, you recognize that (a) your belief in a god isn't based on any tangible evidence, (b) you generally base your positive belief in things on evidence, and (c) you apply this rational skepticism to your belief in a god.
Narratively, "I used to believe in God primarily because I was raised and taught to believe in God. However, normally I don't believe in things like UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, fairies, etc. unless and until someone shows me actual, credible evidence that they exist. That doesn't mean they DON'T exist, of course, but I just don't believe they exist. At some point, I realized that my belief in God was getting a free pass from my normal healthy skepticism for no good reason. Once I realized that I had no credible evidence that God exists, I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe in God any more than in Santa Clause. Now, I don't believe in God. Doesn't mean it's impossible that there is a God; I just don't believe in him until I see some credible evidence."
EDIT - I meant "Yep." It is possible to move from theism to weak atheism.
A world that is better for the president of Blackwater or the Pope may not be better for others.
I'm pretty damn sure it won't. Does that make me an insubstantial-chair-strong-atheist? Or agnostic?
I gotta say -- that's pretty terrible. Making her believe that 'daddy is bad' isn't a bit different than your brainwashing her to believe that 'mommy is stupid'.
It sounds like what you're calling agnosticism is what I would call weak atheism.
So, I don't think I understand your rationale for God's existence, but I'll grant the possibility that this may be because I don't have the prerequisite knowledge in philosophy, vocabulary, etc.
But I am fascinated that you choose to label yourself a Catholic. Obviously, most Catholics did not come to accept Catholicism for the same reasons you do, as they too have not had any exposure to Heidegger et al. You must be an incredibly small minority among people who call themselves "Catholic."
So, I obviously don't know anything about how you personally practice religion, but I assume that it involves interacting with other Catholics in one way or another. Do you find this difficult? Does it trouble you that most of the people who adhere to your religion do not out of rigorous philosophical inquiry but out of habit and/or fear of damnation?
Speaking of damnation... do you have a similar metaphysical argument for existence of hell? or of the validity of the Bible? The trinity? The historical existence of Jesus Christ who died and was re-born and gave humans a pathway to eternal happiness?
You see where I'm going with this... calling yourself a "Catholic" implies a whole list of beliefs that don't seem to logically follow from the metaphysical argument. How do you reconcile this, both personally and in interacting with other religious folk?
That sounds to me like you're saying that Being can't BE anything; you can't say "Being is X" or "Being is Y", or "Being is omniscient" or "Being is sapient."
Then you haven't "understood" anything, you're just covering holes in your knowledge with something different that a supreme being.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Well, I consider myself an atheist but if one had to be technical about it, my views are that of an agnostic on the verge of atheism.
A theist believes in a God. As in 100% definitely.
An atheist then, I perceive as being the opposite -- there is no God, 100% definitely.
An agnostic is everything in between.
Well, I can't say 100% there's no God. I can't really disprove much. For example, I can't disprove unicorns aren't prancing about this country, and are just really good at hiding. I just see no reason to believe they do. So technically, I'm agnostic about unicorns too, right?
Santa Claus? Maybe he's real and uses mind-control beams on parents after giving out presents so they think they gave them out. I can make up all sorts of sci-fi explanations to make absurd sounding things possible. I just don't because it's a pointless tangent with no link to reality. If reality gives you absolutely no indication that something is real, asks no question that the something could answer, I just don't see a reason to be believing in it.
Where did mankind come from? Where did the Universe come from? Where did morality come from? I think I can answer any of these questions with simpler explanations than a God.
God is a supernatural being, and I haven't seen any phenomena to indicate there is one. Bushes may have burned unnecessarily long 2000 years ago but they've been strangely absent since then. I go through my daily routine seeing no evidence of a supernatural existence.
But even with all that -- I can't disprove God exists. Maybe he's just been asleep for the last 10 billion years and hasn't noticed our existence yet. Can I disprove that? No.
I mean, I do not believe in god, but I would by no means call myself an atheist, as I do not disbelieve in god either.
strange to say that catholicism is not paternalistic, when the preachers are called "father", and the head of the whole shebang is called "papa"
Podly's attempts to speak common english really are failures. (At least on me.)
Sorry buddy, I just genuinely don't understand what the heck you're talking about. I guess I just don't have the training or vocabulary.
I'd love to hear your ideas in plain English, but, alas, that doesn't seem possible.
Nobody in any culture I know of, not even the people who call themselves agnostics, have no concept of a deity. Most people have -many- concepts of a deity. They just do not assume they exist due to a lack of evidence. We all get concepts of deities from art and history and people around us and shit we make up ourselves. I used to be weakly polytheistic, myself. I would make requests of both the Abrahamic Deity and Bast (I was reaaaaally into Egyptian mythology), though I would never treat it as worship, but more like asking a neighbor for help. I eventually stopped doing so for lack of evidence when I challenged them to show me some. I still accept the possibility of SOME concept(s) of deity being true, while others I mark as impossible so long as logic is an accurate representation of the universe (the mentioned caveat).
Exactly.
everyone uses the terms differently.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Translation: observers interact with stuff they observe. They also interact with the fact that are capable of observing and thus exist.
Translation, and clarification: everyone assumes they exist. This is a starting assumption upon which all of our knowledge and experience is built. You can't use something observed or proven based on this assumption to prove that the assumption is true. But the alternative—assuming we don't exist—is pointless.
Not within the "circle." i.e. not in the realm derived from the starting assumption that I exist.
It doesn't work at all. It's circular. It's just a fancy way of restating the initial assumption and dressing it up to make it look like something other than an axiom.
Agnostic and weak atheism do not have a strict line.
The closest would be that an agnostic might have a nagging suspicion. But mostly the two words mean the same thing, BUT have different cultural responses.
Like calling someone "Woman" or "Adult Female Human."
Correct, which is why early I said that it should be more probably stated "omniscience is Being" and "omnipresence is Being."
@Mono_Dome: being part of any community gives that experience. Devout Catholics hate that people are only catholic on sunday, etc. So, no, it does not both me in the slightest. For the part about damnation, the Catholic church rejects belief which is based solely on either reason or faith, and always asks its believers to have both faith and reasons for believing in Jesus and the Church, so that's somewhat comforting. I don't really believe in Hell, that the Bible in infallible, etc. The most important part of being a Catholic, I think, is ritual nature of it. For catholicism, praxis is even more important than belief. Someone who had very little faith who nevertheless went to church and confession might in fact be a "better" catholic than someone who believed in those things but never went through with the sacraments.
Like I said, I'm not an atheist, and I don't thing most strong atheists would really want to count me in their fold, yet I fit under some of the definitions that people like to throw out there (I'm assuming, in order to make them feel like they're not alone.)
It opens another very interesting question as well, though. If it is okay for an atheist to be not entirely certain that God doesn't exist, why do some people here think that all theists must be certain in the existance of their gods?
Like, a weak atheist says "I haven't seen evidence of god, so I don't believe in him," vs. the agnostic who says "I haven't seen any evidence of god, so who knows."
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Language has a funny way of picking up additional associations.
See: Liberal/Conservative.
As for theism and certainty, it's a positive assertion.
Can we agree that it is beneficial to be able to discuss theological stances separately from epistemological stances? If yes, then I submit that my usage of the terms is helpful and the others uses I have seen are not.
people always seem to gloss over the fact that there are THREE different states of belief in god, not two. It is a TRINARY propisition
0 - no belief
1 - belief that there is a god
2 - belief that there is no god
Atheists: Someone who believes there is no god.
Gnostic: Someone who is sure in their belief.
Agnostic: Someone who is is not 100% sure in their belief.
It's not a 1D scale, it's a 2D scale.
e: Should probably have refreshed
Do you believe that you will fall through the matter of your chair when you go to sit down?
You are in the exact same sense that I am.
Because there are functional differences that come from the relative certainty of said beliefs.
I'm pretty sure no gods exist. Thus, I do not construct hecatombs to Zeus. I do not pray to Jesus for forgiveness. I do not submit to Allah.
A Christian may not be 100% certain that Yahweh exists, but he is certain enough to modify his behavior accordingly—for example, by praying to Jesus for forgiveness, by attempting to follow Yahweh's commandments, etc.
positive assertions aren't always all or nothing, though.
"I think that there might be a god" is a positive assertion, but it's still at half mast.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The fun thing about the way humans work is that a single person can encompass all three. We are amazingly adept at functioning under contradiction.
Uh, well, that could be one explanation. The other explanation is, you know, atheism for many people means a-theism. A lack of theism. It includes everyone who claims a strong belief that God does not exist, to the agnostic who does not believe in God, but doesn't disbelieve in him either, to the baby who has no concept of a deity.
I prefer to define atheism a little more strongly than that - namely, the understanding that there is a concept of God and that you do not believe in it because you don't think there's sufficient evidence to, and you live your life under the assumption that God does not exist.
But that's just me.
agnostic has absolutely had some definition creep as well.
the problem, in my mind, is that we have no word for the 0 state I posted above. some one who does not believe or disbelieve.
Many atheists want to claim these people, but I do not think that they really count as atheists.
Ironically, it was the church which originally labled these people as atheists, because they were only concerned with people who DID believe, so everyone else was the same to them.
They are atheists.
They behave the exact same way, re: the existence of any given god, as atheists do.
I've never seen an agnostic construct a hecatomb to Zeus "just in case" or "because I'm not entirely sure he doesn't exist."
They're usually just used to create factions.
This could be perhaps because polytheism is not in accordance with the constitution of western metaphysics, whereas monotheism is.
If you'll indulge me in a genetic fallacy of my own, atheism is actually a-theos-ism. As prefixes are applied before suffixes, atheism is actually the ism of a lack of theos.
I understand why people would shift the definition over time, but considering that one word is being used to refer to two distinct groups, who are NOT necessarily unified in their goals, I think the creeping definition does our discourse a disservice.