Whats an Agnostic to do in a lackers world?

So there I was minding my business and all of a sudden a Neo Atheist told me agnostic no longer exists and that I am really an atheist! Like WTF?

Thats right!

NeoAtheist evangelists came along and told me that I am an Atheist because agnostics lacked belief!

Few days later a Theist comes along and tells me that I am a Theist because agnostics lack disbelief! Like WTF?

Someone want to help me sort that out?

In the modern intellectual super genius world of 2018 I am identified as:

1) A theist because I lack disbelief
2) An Agnostic because I lack 'believe and disbelief'
3) An Atheist because I lack belief

So whats an agnostic to do in this modern atheological intellectual world?

So does that mean that agnostics are now athe-agno-theists?

There I was just minding my own business, blinked my eyes and look what happened.

Anyone care to sort that mess out?

I'm not so sure I want to be an athe-agno-theist

Tags: Atheism Lack Belief Religion Atheist Theism Theist

 

then I guess don't get hung up on labels...

..have a beer and pizza and enjoy life...don't stress on the irrelevent...?

 

Well I dont know man, I feel as if my choice of religion has been hijacked in a tug of war between them!

Funny you'd say that! Thats exactly what I had for supper! lol

 

Sure. Sometimes people say things that aren’t actually true.

Nothing has changed, you’ve just encountered a couple of idiots or trolls who aren’t worth considering (or you made up encounters to present your general impression of society and therefore are part of the problem).

Well given that’s a label you’ve just invented, it’s only going to apply to you if you choose to apply it to yourself.

To echo the previous response, don’t get hung up on labels.

 

then just sit back...life's a bitch without stressing over what others think of you and your beliefs... I mean bugger that for a game of soldiers...why give a toss that they call them anyway...more beer required...!!!

 

Nah, I dont take either approach, my view of the world pretty much aligns with GC's.....

When you are born in this world, you are given a ticket to the Freak Show, and when you are born in America, you have a front row seat - George Carlin (rip)

So its not a stress issue at all, but it is somewhat of a label issue because I feel like my identity has been stolen because different words have different meanings and in this case completely different meanings.

Yeh, but in this case the label refers to my religious identity and we have 3 different labels all claiming the same turf. AtheAgoTheist seems like it a complete contradiction in terms to me but I think its descriptive of the resulting label from the tug of war? I selected agnostic as my religion and dont want that to change.

 

I don’t see how your entire individual identity can be significantly harmed by a couple of strangers defining some words differently. Surely who you actually are doesn’t change in the slightest, regardless of what they say about you and certainly regardless of what they say about labels that may or may not be applied to you.

The labels themselves are abstract concepts, they’re not doing anything. What you actually have is a bunch of people playing their socio-political games with the labels and that’s the kind of game where the only way to win is not to play.

 

I do not really understand why religious labels matter at all to non-religious people. I do admit to enjoying defending my "Lack" of fantasy belief however when Christians (it is ALWAYS Christians) try to send me to their hell or spew their God everywhere.

 

because, its my personal world view and chosen system of beliefs, and I dont like people trying to tell me what my religion is or is not especially by hijacking the meaning of my chosen religion and claiming I am some other religion that I am not.

This was prompted by neoatheists stealing the definition and then spewing their 'no God' anywhere!

 

which returns to the point....so why bother about what others think...if you believe in what you believe then fine, sod the rest of the world!!!
What's your favourite colour....blue...red...green...??
If someone comes up and says no its not!! Its...orange...purple...bolloxs...whatever....what do you do, have a wee hissy fit, go into meltdown mode and have an identity crisis??
Mate, you need to grow a pair!!

 

That would be funny were it not coming from someone who constantly tells Atheists they have a religion. It is also important to note that almost EVERY time an Atheists comments it is in reply to a Christian making a claim or asking for debate....and this IS a debate forum.

 

If you’re defining “agnostic” as relating you your entire personal set of beliefs and you won’t accept any other definition, aren’t you equally guilty of “hijacking” the word? Are your beliefs not worthy of their own unique definition rather than being forced to fit in to some existing singular term?

 

I struggle to believe that theists actually came to tell you that to be a theist is to lack disbelief, rather than to have belief. The atheism line of argument works because there is a sizeable, although maybe not all-encompassing, amount of users which use the lack definition as the definition of atheism. I don't believe the converse is true for theists or people talking about theists.

I think that's where the issue is, we're only discussing labels. We're only discussing descriptions of reality, not reality itself. If you anchor your identity in the words rather than that which the words refer to, your identity is going to be in for a rocky ride.

 

Your personal religion is exactly that? Personal.

So what if somebody else says you are this or that. YOu know what you believe and that is all that matters.

So some stupid jerk claims you are "<insert appropriate label"> . Big deal. fanatics of all stripes are pains in the butt. Why should some "neo-atheists" (whatever the hell that is) be exempt?

 

Of course not, agnostic is a religious preference same as theist or atheist is a religious preference and pertains to religion.

No one except the neo atheists used it until they seen it in the dictionary, and guess what theists lack disbelief in God, and there goes the excluded middle! .
Its 100% grammatically correct unless you are prepared to argue that a theist does not lack disbelief in the God of their choice?

you cant be serious. If you correctly label yourself a child care person and someone comes along and claims the meaning of 'child care person' is pedophile you are going to be rightfully pissed. Words have meanings, when a word is chosen its chosen because it fits and conveys the intended meaning. The label identifies the condition, same as religion, the label identifies the condition, not the other way around.

This is political, not just between me and another.

Religion Wiki

Neo-atheism is the polemic of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the Bible. Unlike their atheist predecessors, they exhibit a ferocious antagonism towards religion. Neo-atheism promulgates a zeal for evolution and Darwinism, exemplifed by Dawkins being described as Darwin's rottweiller.

The difference between other atheists and neo-atheists is that the former rarely push their views on anyone, whereas the modern neo-atheists are essentially anti-religious activists.

 

My point is that agnostic isn't a religious preference. It is a term for one small part of a much wider world view a person may have.

Religion is a way people can respond to their world view. The world view is what you believe, religion is what you do about it. Anyone can practice a religion regardless of the make-up of their world view and anyone can not practice a religion regardless of the make-up of their world view.

There will be people who hold the same views as you about the existence of gods but who have entirely different world views and religious practices to you in many other aspects. That’s why you can’t claim agnosticism (or theism/atheism) as religions in and of themselves. By extension, that’s why treating these labels as something to apply as definitions of individuals (yourself or others) and the general obsession with them is flawed.

 

Have you actually seen a neo-atheist argue that, or did they make the argument that atheism is a lack of belief, and you extrapolated the same logic to theists without telling us, thus hiding the part of the logic that we might disagree with? I mean, I can see how the comparison was made in jest, but if you're looking for an actual answer or for informed comments on what you say, you might want to include and draw attention to that.

No, I do not need to argue that theists do not lack disbelief, I need to argue that lacking disbelief is not sufficient to identify a person as a theist. Theists do lack disbelief in God, but that is not the entire definition of a theist, and so, your conclusion that arguments above mean you are a theist are invalid.

This issue only turns up insofar that people have different understandings of the same word at the same time. It is only really an issue if you by context suggest that you're referring to the same people.

I could imagine a person who wants to say something about paedophiles but thinks the word is in poor taste and therefore uses child care person as a euphemism (maybe together with a meaning look). If they make this clear, people will understand that they're not talking about any old day care attendant. Maybe in slightly poor taste (I would have picked an example with less emotional irrationality around it), but the point stands.

If you really understand that that person is talking about paedophiles when they say child care person, then you should understand that what is being said about those child care people is not said about you.

As I've mentioned earlier, I don't subscribe to the idea that words have specific meanings outside of the usage. I don't think it even makes sense to argue that paedophile is "the" meaning of child care person. It is only really possible to say 'I'm going to make some argument (or make an interpretation of someone else's argument) using "child care person" to mean paedophile'. Such a statement is fully possible, but I disagree with your insistence that that has some impact on "the" meaning in any greater sense.

 

Lets just cut to the chase here and stop this pointless/disingenuous BS.

"Lacking Disbelief" is just a dishonestly complex distraction saying "Belief. The individual putting this garbage out there is nothing but an internet troll with obvious issues best professionally dealt with.

 

Answer these two questions:

1. Do you believe in any god?
2. Do you claim to know whether or not a god exists?

 

Someone here claims to be an atheist agnostic, or vice versa. It is an incoherence, for it is a contradiction of terms. And agnostic simple says he does not know the answer. An atheist says he knows, and there is no god, or some force independent of this universe, and a theist says he knows that there is a god or some force independent of this universe.

Atheists are just trying to bring you into their fold, and must not mind indulging in incoherence in order to do it? ha ha

Gotta watch these folks who try to cloud up what is simple. 21st century Newspeak? Or their brains are not just logical enough to not get caught in the traps they create. ha ha

 

That would be me, as I am an Agnostic/Atheist. I do not believe in any of the "Gods" we humans have defined over the centuries as all of them are manmade explanations for things not understood or a political means of control. That said I am not fool enough to pretend I know what might be "Out There" as that would make me no better than theists.

 

It's not going to be that simple. He doesn't consider this a yes/no question, but one where "neither yes nor no" is a valid answer (in my opinion in conflict with the law of the excluded middle).

 

So first you don't know, being an agnostic, but you also know being an atheist? Stop it! ha ha You re not in the world Alice found down that rabbit hole, at least not on this issue. I find it astounding that you are still trying to defend a basic incoherence.

This isn't the quantum level here. ha ha

 

Listen to your own self. There's no need to let the needling of the obnoxious into your own being. You decide.

 

Okay, as it seems basic explanation is not understood for some reason I will attempt clarity:

Having read many of the text that are used to explain our Gods I have noted many impossibilities called "Miracles" that place the stories and thus the entities into the realm of fiction and after personal appeal to said Gods went unanswered I came to the conclusion they were false. However, I fully understand the limitations of my knowledge base and thus leave open possibility that there may be another non fabricated force or entity we would refer to as "God".

I hope that clears the concept up for you, and if not it makes no difference regardless.