Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
the mouse wrote:Yes, and the corresponding term here would be akin to "agnosticism".
the mouse wrote:
You would be akin to "agnostic" in regards to my car ownership, and akin to an "atheist" in regard to me being a cyclops, as I would be regarding you as well.
DarthHelmet86 wrote:I don't believe all gods must be imaginary. .
Sendraks wrote:\
Nope. I'm making no views regarding your car ownership.
Were I to do so, adopting an agnostic position would be a nonsense, as it is something that could be known.
I also lack a belief in gods like the Christian god existing, I might think that the god in the Bible is a load of nonsense and made up but that doesn't mean I believe it doesn't exist. And once again I hate people telling me what I think or believe, I consider it very rude to do.
the mouse wrote:You lack a belief, on whether I own a car or not. No matter how you cut it, this is exactly your position here.
the mouse wrote:
Agnosticism is not dependent on whether or not something can be known at a latter time or not, it's only a matter if it's known, or unknown at the time in question. Theoretically anything can be known in some forceable future, under some forceable circumstances, but yet in regards to agnosticism, this does not matter. It's only a question of the present moment.
DarthHelmet86 wrote:Once again telling me how I must think. I lack a belief in a god or gods existing, simple as that. I do not believe they don't exist.
DarthHelmet86 wrote:No I know what I believe and don't believe or what I have a belief in or not.
Rumraket wrote:[
Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.
the mouse wrote:Rumraket wrote:[
Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.
1+1=5, is not illogical.
Because technically one can represent one, 2.5oz bag of coke, and the 5 could just mean 5 oz in total.
Rumraket wrote:
What does that have to do with anything I've said?
the mouse wrote:Who are these agnostics? I am an agnostic atheist, as are many of the members of this forum. So your claim that those who identify as agnostics don't consider themselves to be atheists is wrong
Uhm, all the agnostics that classifies themselves as agnostics, but distinct from atheists, such as those who self-identify on surveys as such.
Huxley who coined the term agnostic, didn't consider himself an agnostic atheist.
I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.
This whole trend of defining agnostics as in one camp or the other, is also recent, popularized by the God delusion. Prior to that the common understanding, self-identficiation, was that the two were distinct terms.
Are you not aware of this shifting in understanding of these terms, that occurred more recently than you think?
Oldskeptic wrote:What I am aware of is that the term atheist until recently was defined by theists who wanted to define atheism in the worst possible terms.
Rumraket wrote:
Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.
the mouse wrote:1+1=5, is not illogical.
Because technically one can represent one, 2.5oz bag of coke, and the 5 could just mean 5 oz in total.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest