Why is it silly?

Furion

Well-known member
That is nonsensical. Nobody has "belief in unbelief". It doesn't even make sense. (Weak) atheists lack a belief in the existence of gods. Why that's so hard for some to understand I'll never know.
Agnostics lack belief in the existence of God.

Seems atheists are just agnostics.

Agnostic is cool and hip, the new hotness.
Atheist is old and busted, burdened under the weight of defining nonsense.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Agnostics lack belief in the existence of God.

Seems atheists are just agnostics.

Agnostic is cool and hip, the new hotness.
Atheist is old and busted, burdened under the weight of defining nonsense.
No. Agnostics say nothing about belief. They say that God (or any other deity) is unknowable, that whatever we may believe, we can never be sure.

Atheists don't have a belief in deities. They may be agnostic as well. Personally, I am agnostic towards the idea of a hypothetical deity, but I'm sure enough that the Christian God does not exist.
 

5wize

Well-known member
That is the problem with internet skeptics, they tend to talk in circles on this subject.

Firstly, you don't "know" anything about God. You readily admit it.
I don't exactly know where my personal admission of that happened during a generic, non personalized, description of the terms.
Secondly, belief is just another word for opinion in your view.

That's fair, keeping in mind that opinions can be based on pure hypotheticals and theories based on some facts of knowledge. If you are aware of some facts, but are aware at the same time of some holes in your theory's factual landscape, you can consciously hold an opinion on the matter without claiming a final deductive knowledge.
Thirdly, there is not one hard atheist on this earth, according to your definitions.
Anyone who "claims" to know
So throw off the word atheist and stick with agnostic, since you will never "know", but can only have an opinion about it. And you know what they say about opinions.
Lot's of people describe and "claim to know" a complete deduction about either god's existence or lack of existence. If we disagree, we view them as opinions, but they view them as deducted facts. What would you call someone who claims to know, based on a set of deducted facts, that there is no god as opposed to someone who just claims it is impossible to know? (please forgo the softball answer of "deluded") Can you use language to distinguish between the 2?
If you are not going to reveal what your opinion is, what your belief is, and what you know, then you just argue word definitions, and I would suggest finding a good dictionary arguing forum.
Awww.. don't get razzled. Just ask. Was that you asking? Ask nicer next time, but O.K. I positively deduct, by facts of my experience in this world, that the God described in the bible is nothing more than an Hebrew anthropomorphic of normal and natural experiences we all go through but are attributed to some divine, mixed with supernatural mythology as that was very prominent in the Hellenistic environment that brought forth the cult of Christianity.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I think you can but I suggested the same thing about the belief regarding God's existence before, i.e. you believe God could or could not exist, and I think you said in response that either you believe something or you don't.
Yes, but I don't understand why you see that as a contradiction.
So, if someone isn't sure what they believe, what would you call them?
In relation to gods, if they cannot say "I believe in the existence of a god(s)", then they are by definition an atheist.
But if agnosticism is about knowledge, then what about belief, i.e. what if you're belief isn't settled or you believe both are possible?
I think I answered this above.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I don't exactly know where my personal admission of that happened during a generic, non personalized, description of the terms.


That's fair, keeping in mind that opinions can be based on pure hypotheticals and theories based on some facts of knowledge. If you are aware of some facts, but are aware at the same time of some holes in your theory's factual landscape, you can consciously hold an opinion on the matter without claiming a final deductive knowledge.

Lot's of people describe and "claim to know" a complete deduction about either god's existence or lack of existence. If we disagree, we view them as opinions, but they view them as deducted facts. What would you call someone who claims to know, based on a set of deducted facts, that there is no god as opposed to someone who just claims it is impossible to know? (please forgo the softball answer of "deluded") Can you use language to distinguish between the 2?

Awww.. don't get razzled. Just ask. Was that you asking? Ask nicer next time, but O.K. I positively deduct, by facts of my experience in this world, that the God described in the bible is nothing more than an Hebrew anthropomorphic of normal and natural experiences we all go through but are attributed to some divine, mixed with supernatural mythology as that was very prominent in the Hellenistic environment that brought forth the cult of Christianity.
Razzled?
You'll need to try much harder, better than you have failed.

These are your trinkets and words to define. I've not stated my beliefs. However, I am in Rome, doing what the Romans (atheists on this forum) do.

Your very deep and probing question looks impossible, but I will try because you are awesome.

I would say the atheist who tells me there is no God, based on their "deduced" facts needs to quit using philosophical inferences and show me their empirical evidence.

It's nice you've described your beliefs and all, but what you've not done is tell me whether you are an atheist or not, an agnostic or not, what you know, what you claim to know, and other assorted questions that may arise.

If you go with agnostic-atheist then I think one term is entirely unnecessary, and then give me your best shot why you need two names to describe the same thing. Trust me, few care about the delicacies of nuanced and long winded explanations for simple subjects. But I will entertain it, and push you to resolve for x a little harder.
 

Furion

Well-known member
No. Agnostics say nothing about belief. They say that God (or any other deity) is unknowable, that whatever we may believe, we can never be sure.

Atheists don't have a belief in deities. They may be agnostic as well. Personally, I am agnostic towards the idea of a hypothetical deity, but I'm sure enough that the Christian God does not exist.
So they actually claim they have knowledge that God is unknowable? That is stupid.

Couldn't they just go all the way and claim they have knowledge that God doesn't exist?

Seems agnostics are no different than atheists, claiming unknowable things.

Do I read you correctly to say agnostics have beliefs in deities?

It would make sense since you said they have enough knowledge of God to claim God unknowable.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So they actually claim they have knowledge that God is unknowable? That is stupid.

Couldn't they just go all the way and claim they have knowledge that God doesn't exist?

Seems agnostics are no different than atheists, claiming unknowable things.

Do I read you correctly to say agnostics have beliefs in deities?

It would make sense since you said they have enough knowledge of God to claim God unknowable.
You are confused. I suggest you look up the terms in a reputable dictionary. They are not synonyms. Neither are they mutually exclusive.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Razzled?
You'll need to try much harder, better than you have failed.
You seemed a bit defensively aggressive in your responses so far. You seemed to have calmed a bit below.
These are your trinkets and words to define. I've not stated my beliefs. However, I am in Rome, doing what the Romans (atheists on this forum) do.

Your very deep and probing question looks impossible, but I will try because you are awesome.

I would say the atheist who tells me there is no God, based on their "deduced" facts needs to quit using philosophical inferences and show me their empirical evidence.
Ditto vis versa.
It's nice you've described your beliefs and all, but what you've not done is tell me whether you are an atheist or not, an agnostic or not, what you know, what you claim to know, and other assorted questions that may arise.

If you go with agnostic-atheist then I think one term is entirely unnecessary, and then give me your best shot why you need two names to describe the same thing. Trust me, few care about the delicacies of nuanced and long winded explanations for simple subjects. But I will entertain it, and push you to resolve for x a little harder.
I am an atheist towards the Christian God. I am an agnostic towards a definition of a powerful non-contingent "something" which has characteristics that we actually see impressions of in reality.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
You seemed a bit defensively aggressive in your responses so far. You seemed to have calmed a bit below.

Ditto vis versa.

I am an atheist towards the Christian God. I am an agnostic towards a definition of a powerful non-contingent "something" which has characteristics that we actually see impressions of in reality.
Sure, your impression is your discernment of good from evil, of this "something" God of yours. It's not explainable and only the human creature has it in the known universe. That would be one thumbprint of the something God on mankinds sorry butt. Quit being so defensive of your ignorance.
 
Top