If I were the devil...

[stu]

Quote from Misthos:

So what you're saying is that one who agrees with the morality of Jesus more than the morality of Zeus is a Christian?

I fail to see your logic here.

I fail to see the logic there too. But then, that is not what I am saying.

I asked about supernatural images like God. If you are agnostic about God, are you not agnostic about Zeus and Thor? It's a straightforward and consistently logical question.

Quote from Misthos:

Agnostic:

1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

1. a. Dont' know is atheist. Know is theist. Don't know/care about politics , then apolitical. Same thing. Without politics without morals without God..apolitical, amoral, atheist.

b. Skeptical, unsure doubtful about being pregnant does not make someone less pregnant. They might be unsure they are pregnant, but they either are or they are not. Same with theist and atheist.

2. So , are you doubtful or noncommittal about Thor?
Are you saying it is reasonable to believe that a supernatural hammer wielding God makes lightening and Thunder might exist?

Quote from Misthos:

I guess if by cop-out you mean I am noncommittal or doubtful - than I agree. Isn't that what an agnostic is?

No. By cop out I mean closet theist. No offence intended.

 

[Misthos]

No offence taken.

regarding your greek interpretation:

I am fluent in greek , and both agnostic and atheist are of course greek. The "a" in front of a greek term means without, not "don't know/don't care." The connotation is much stronger than one who doesn't know or cares. For example, if "don't know and don't care" are one extreme and the other extreme is "complete disavowment" or even "abhorrence" - I would say the "a" in front of a greek word is closer to the disavowment extreme than the "doesn't care" extreme.

So...

atheist - is certain in no god

theist - is certain in a god

agnostic - is certainly clueless, firmly so!


As for your slippery slope argument between the jewish god, and Thor and for that matter a holy omnipotent head of lettuce, I answer thus:

Reducto ad absurdum works both ways. An atheist has the arrogance to disbelieve something he has not seen... oh, like a black swan.

The agnostic sees nuances... If there is a god, would it/he/she be: a holy omnipotent head of lettuce? highly unlikley... Thor, doubt it, but who knows? Same for Jesus's Dad. A force, a power, if there were to be a "god" maybe that may make more sense.... the best an agnostic can say: "I certainly don't know, BUT if there is a god, I would assume it's not a three headed green ogre jelly eating monster.

By the way, if you are an atheist... I feel compelled to warn you: you could end up in hell. LOL

But that's Pascal's wager, another can of worms.

 

[stu]

Quote from Misthos:

regarding your greek interpretation:

I am fluent in greek , and both agnostic and atheist are of course greek. The "a" in front of a greek term means without, not "don't know/don't care."

We are in agreement. The "don't know/don't care." is what is often deemed to be agnostic, but which I am saying is atheist anyway, because you cannot be a bit without God anymore than a bit pregnant.

Quote from Misthos:

So...

atheist - is certain in no god

NO. We just agreed The "a" in front of a greek term means 'without'. So it's without God, not "certain in no God".

Quote from Misthos:

As for your slippery slope argument between the jewish god, and Thor and for that matter a holy omnipotent head of lettuce, I answer thus:

I am in awe....oh great daisy of the Asteraceae......

Quote from Misthos:

Reducto ad absurdum works both ways. An atheist has the arrogance to disbelieve something he has not seen... oh, like a black swan.

Does that arrogance come before or after your logical inconsistency that says "without" means "certain in no God " ?
If you are apolitical, you don't then HAVE to be certain there are no politics or have any uncertainty with them. You just don't do politics, as an atheist can just - not do God.

Quote from Misthos:

The agnostic sees nuances... If there is a god, would it/he/she be: a holy omnipotent head of lettuce? highly unlikley... Thor, doubt it, but who knows? Same for Jesus's Dad. A force, a power, if there were to be a "god" maybe that may make more sense.... the best an agnostic can say: "I certainly don't know, BUT if there is a god, I would assume it's not a three headed green ogre jelly eating monster.

If there were to be a God?

If you don't know or are unsure you are "without God", there is a word for that.
If you consider there may be a God then you are "with God".....

you have ideas of God which is ALL any theist has.

Quote from Misthos:

But that's Pascal's wager, another can of worms.

Oh dear. You may be fluent in Greek but I suggest you need catch up on the well known absurdum with Pascal's wager.

 

[Misthos]

Stu - we really are splitting hairs here and using both terms differently. In my view without god is the logical translation from greek. When I say certain in no god - it is a definition I looked up - "atheism - a doctrine that there is no deity."

I use both because words over time, get nuanced.

As for agnostics:

I guess it's how you view "without" knowledge. I allow for the possibility of both scenarios (god and no god) because there is no proof either way.

OTOH, you have this view of an agnostic that puts them entirely in the atheist camp because of your weak "bit pregnant" analogy. Pregnancy is a physical certaintude. We are dealing with the lack of knowledge here - two different things. Not knowing allows all rational (in the mind of the subject) possibilities. There could be a god, or not. These two conflicting views can exist because there is no proof to the contrary of either.

Without knowledge, I cannot rule either out. But allowing the possibility of a god does not make me a theist, just as allowing for the possibility of no god does not make me an atheist. I am neither and await proof.

unless of course, you are a closet agnostic.

In Christ,

Misthos

(That too... was a joke, as was Pascal's Wager sorry you didn't get it before)

 

[trendlover]

I think Stu is saying if a person say they are agnostic, than god is possible to them. So really they are theist because agnostic can not say god is impossible. For Stu he is saying it is only possible to be thiest or athiest, because of any doubt there is no god will make a person a theist. Is that what you are saying Stu?

 

[Martinghoul]

I am with Misthos here...

To me these are the definitions:
Atheist - certain there exists no deity(ies)/creator(s)/supreme being(s)
Theist - certain there exists deity(ies)/creator(s)/supreme being(s)
Agnostic - uncertain re the above

I disagree with stu's definition of agnostic, which essentially comes down to:
Agnostic = NOT atheist, which implies agnostic = theist.

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from Misthos:

No offence taken.

regarding your greek interpretation:

I am fluent in greek , and both agnostic and atheist are of course greek. The "a" in front of a greek term means without, not "don't know/don't care."

A = negative or no (or without)
Theos = God
Ginosko = to know

A-theist = No God
A-gnostic = to not know

For those of you that like Latin, the word for agnostic is "Ignoramus"

 

[stu]

trendlover,

Essentially yes, that is what I am saying.
That, at least for the sake of intellectual honesty, there is no middle ground.



Mithos,

This is not hair splitting at all.
With respect, you can't substantiate saying, the word 'without' means 'certain in none'.

I would like to test the definition , not just accept evidence without question on definitions in a dictionary , or by popular understanding of a word, when definitions and understandings change over time and is now anyway contrary to rules of meaning in usage of the prefix 'a' , which is well known and which you have correctly supplied .

"I guess it's how you view "without" knowledge. I allow for the possibility of both scenarios (god and no god) because there is no proof either way."

When you allow for the possibility of God then you are theist. That's what theists do.
When you don't allow for the possibility of God then you are atheist. That's what people 'without' God do.

Even from a slightly esoteric angle , you don't allow for both scenarios at the very same time. At that point of do/don't, quite honestly, you have a paradox - not an agnosticism.

At that point surely , both cancel each other out and you are left with the Greek original and their more realistic understanding of being ' without ' and the true etymology of the 'a' in atheist .

anyway:
Gnostic is - a knowledge of spiritual things.
Agnostic therefore is without a knowledge of spiritual things.

So God whatever, is a spiritual thing . Are you sometimes without knowledge and sometimes with knowledge of that spiritual thing ?
You would have to be an agnostic agnostic .
I can see a problem of infinite regress developing.

No, there is no middle ground . A spectrum on either side - yes - where all those nuances are. But overall you either is or you ain't.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I am with Misthos here...

To me these are the definitions:
Atheist - certain

A sceptic can never be certain about the existence of anything, so under your definition there would be basically no atheists in the world, and people like Hume, Marx, Dawkins etc would not be classified as atheists. Since this is clearly ridiculous, your definition is incorrect. An atheist is just someone who puts the probability of a deity existing at an extremely low level - similar to the probability of leprechauns, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus existing.

An agnostic is someone who is "not sure" e.g. they might put the odds of a deity existing at 50/50, or 25%. In other words, they think there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity that the probability is reasonable and within rational contemplation. Whereas an atheist would put it at 1 in a million or (far) less. But no one with any grasp of reality, common sense, or logic would put the odds at absolutely zero.

Thus for an atheist, agnostics are guilty of the same implausible beliefs as theists - they just aren't quite as inaccurate. The atheist attitude to agnostics is similar to the sceptics attitude to people who think there is a 25% chance of Santa Claus or the Boogie Man existing i.e. they think agnostics are gullible morons, just not quite as gullible or moronic as the religious or Boogie Man believers.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

If i were the devil...

...I would be too busy having fun with the best music, blow and sluts to give two figs about the stupidities of such trivial non-entities as humans on earth. Why bother trying to tempt them to "evil", when human nature and weakness guarantees that every single one of them will commit enough "sins" in their lifetime to guarantee an eternity in my fiery dungeons?