Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Thin Red Line

Where is the boundary when somebody stops being agnostic and starts being an atheist?

I'm sure that everybody has had their doubts about God and religion, and everything related, but how much doubt do you have to have to be an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist?

Somewhere there's got to be that thin, red line.

8 Comments:

At 11/30/2005 7:13 AM, Blogger Enil Edam said...

Well, I was agnostic for a while, a few years.

I guess when I stopped believing in God in any sort of form, when I started to say "God is a figment of the human imagnination." I called myself atheist.

But there definitely is a thin red line somewhere. For me, when I stopped believing in any possible manifestation of God, I became atheist.

 
At 11/30/2005 9:45 AM, Anonymous Sam said...

Agnostics are still searching for Truth.

Atheists have given up on Truth. They have no patients for those still looking and no use for those who have found it. Logic and reason become their god, in a sense.

We are all created to worship. Some people worship material things. Some people worship the "adrenaline rush". Some worship other people and relationships. God put these need to worship in us as a means to find our way to Him, a divine homeing device, of sorts. That's why nothing but a relationship with Him ever truly satisfies. This blog is an atheist church. Unbelief and human "wisdom" is your god. No one is devoid of worship.

 
At 11/30/2005 11:43 AM, Blogger Delta said...

Agnostic to me is just a pussy's way of saying they're an atheist without pissing anyone off =) To simply say "I don't know" gives wayyy too much credibility to the theist side. I don't say that I'm agnostic with respect to unicorns, magic elves, or anything else, so why should I say it with respect to a god which not only is just as unproven, but also often is logically impossible. (a unicorn is simply a horse with a horn on its head, so if I'd believe anything it'd be it).

And about sam's statements. The first sign of someone being brainwashed is when they decide that truth is capitalized and wisdom needs quotes. The statement "no one is devoid of worship" is intended to bring atheist down to the same primitive-level that he/she is at. Thing is, atheists don't worship anything, and that makes theists feel inferior, so that have to tell us what we actually worship. But this is all common knowledge.

 
At 11/30/2005 11:59 AM, Anonymous Sam said...

See what I mean?

 
At 11/30/2005 3:05 PM, Anonymous Morgan said...

(a)gnosticism and (a)theism measure different things, at least as I use them: knowledge, and belief. A theist believes that (a) God(s) exist(s), an atheist does not believe that, or positively believes that it is not true. The more ambiguous one is (a)gnosticism, because you can gnostically believe that you have knowledge of (a) God(s), or you can agnostically claim that such knowledge is impossible, but in the middle you can also believe that knowledge is possible without believing you possess it, which I guess is also called agnosticism. This is the problem with these simple dichotomies, at least one option can generally be subdivided further.

In any case, you don't really need to go from agnostic to atheist, you can be both. You can say 'I don't believe that god exists' and also 'I think certain knowledge of this is impossible'. The trick is that I would agree it's a bit wishy-washy to say that because you don't have certain knowledge of a thing, you have no belief about it. Belief, unbelief or disbelief doesn't require perfect, complete knowledge. You don't believe there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, even though you don't have the knowledge required to guarantee you're right.

 
At 11/30/2005 7:31 PM, Anonymous El Penguino said...

i became agnostic when atheists around kept pointing out lots of things about god, like the paradox of whether he could make a rock so big evenb he couldnt carry it, or the impossibilty to be perfect, i gave some credit to these points but im still sure that there has to be a god of some kind whether its perfect or not, so being agnostic provides a middle ground

 
At 11/30/2005 7:43 PM, Anonymous Morgan said...

Believing that there has to be a god of some sort doesn't sound like agnosticism, but like deism or non-specific theism. If you feel you *know* there must be some kind of god, that puts you outside the definition of agnosticism, I think. You seem to say you know that there is a god but not any of his attributes; that probably comes closest to deism. To be honest, though, I can't see it as very meaningful to assert a belief that something exists if you can't define what you mean. I'd advise investigating just what properties you believe a god would have, and then decide whether you believe such a god exists. If you decide it's unknowable you'll be an agnostic, if you decide you don't believe you'll be an atheist, but your current stance doesn't really sound like any definite named philosophical position.

 
At 12/21/2005 6:02 PM, Anonymous El Penguino said...

well i think the basic idea of agnosticism is believing you cant prove or disprove god, you can be theist or atheist in addition to agnostic

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.