What Happens When We Stop Believing in God

I don't see my atheism as being a forever absolute. Am I an agnostic?

Level of doubt is difficult to measure, isn't it? And, theists have doubts, too.

 

I was trying to lead toward what the difference is.

One could look at what and how decisions are being made - sort of an operational view of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

 

Theist is a person who believes God(s) exist.
Atheist is a person who is not a theist (which includes agnostic atheists)
Gnostic is a person who thinks they know if Gods exist.
Agnostic is a person who isn't a gnostic.

I personally don't believe Gods exist, though I don't know they don't, and am thereby both agnostic and atheist. Other atheists think they know Gods don't exist and are thereby not agnostic.

Yes. Of non-belief, not necessarily of belief against. The latter is more than mere atheist if atheist is only non-belief.

Agnostic (doesn't claim to know) can be theist (believes Gods exist anyway). Atheist can't be theist. That's a pretty big distinction I would say.

 

Sorry, but I'm an atheist, and a god.

People really underestimate what you can do in philosophy..

 

If God has low self esteem and doesn't believe in himself, does that make him an atheist?

 

You'd have to ask him.

Like Nietzsche said, god is dead. What he didn't say is that we would get sucked into the vacuum. People hate that idea, and I don't blame them a bit. Being a god sucks big time.

 

I told you were in semantic hell hole Gnostic ? are you freaken kidding me .. Not Gnostic That is not what the definition of Agnostic means in traditional usage .. lost in space .. it does not mean anti Gnostic theology

Glad we got that settled .. existentialist definition trap

and you end up giving my definition "doesn't claim to know" such that one can believe on way or the other .. can't separate out the Believe part of the equation .. as there is a knowing element to belief .

So .. we end up at my definition Agnostics not so ardent in belief .. less likely to take action to restrict religious freedom

 

but you believe in Ghosts!
So are you ready to admit to your contradiction

 

Yes, not so ardent - belief isn't necessarily absolute. But, tossing in ideas of "knowing" doesn't help anything.

But, the "less likely to take action to restrict religious freedom" I find objectionable.

Attempts to restrict religious freedom come from all quarters, including those who are significantly religious.

Yet, even some on this board think that atheists are the source of restrictions on religious freedom.

 

and the difference is?

what giant load of manure!
Im agnostic and I claim to know!

 

yardmeat is nonsequitur, just majorly stomped all over your claims in my threqad, love watching you boys step all over each other!

Yeh its fun watching you bury yourselves!

atheists are far more militant than theists, and they ban everyones religion but their own religion!

A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities.

Secular religion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Secular_religion

They like stalin use law to compel their religion! Its false to claim the only people with religion are theists LOL

No one needs to be heckled with strawman arguments

word games, games you have no clue what so ever how to prove!
yer good at dodgin though!

except you, since you were challenged to prove your nonsense countless times.

You provided me with a great education in dodging, strawmanning and ad homs

and one day you will understand that agnostics dont disbelieve in God

 

What is it that you claim to know?

 

My comparison was of atheists and agnostics .. agnostics being less likely to be militant.

Disagree that Atheists are far more militant than theists .. don't see support for this claim .. both are militant on the extremes .. less so in the middle.

 

none existed, they were outlaws no amount of apologizing will ever change that.

Allow? Who appointed the North as gaurdian of the universe?
It was a power grab, the north was OUTLAWS doing what outlaws do, violating the law.

Yep you got the right to think whatever you want then sit yo ass down and **** !
Freedome of religion american style/.
Geee will, that not what the constitution says!
Trying to water down our rights again I see!

we never granted the state the power to make bullshit rules like that!
Your religion is fine as long as it has the states good housekeeping seal!
Yessa Massa, may I pray in public Massa?

The free exercise part always just happens to skip your mind huh wil?

we do not have a secular guvmint that BS, we have a guvmint that alledgedl y passes secular laws, which is one of the finest oxymorons I have ever heard, since politics is after all your religion in public forum.

More of the same watering down our rights.

since when has that stopped any nutcase atheist in power from doing it anyway?

 

that both atheists and thiests are full of

 

Stalinist purges for instance.
Yep I could care less what people want to believe in, they can carry a purple herbie on the shoulder if they like.
Its atheists trying to sell their BS theories that agnostics are really atheist, because now they are stepping on my 'personal' toes. ( and they cant prove it logically, its not possible! but that doesnt stop them from making 10,000 posts tryin! LOL)

 

[QUOTE="Giftedone, post: 1073634417, member: 50378"That is not what the definition of Agnostic means in traditional usage [/quote]

That is what agnostic means to many people in common usage. I am not bothered that it isn't the definition that you prefer, or if it is the oldest definition or not. It is a definition that many use.

I do agree that its better to simply say what we mean and not to get mired up in labels.

I don't see why that would follow. You haven't shown your work on that.

Theists may be more likely than atheists to restrict religious freedom (of anyone not of their religion)
Agnostics and Atheists I see no reason to think one would restrict freedom of religion more than the other, regardless of which of the two above definitions (yours or mine) we use for atheist or agnostic.

 

yer on a roll!

 

They respond to a single proposition with 2 unrelated answers! (a contradiction)

I looked that up, truly the above post is so brilliant I had to get a welders helmet to keep from being blinded!

Just for kicks I looked it up!

yup they enjoy taking nice strolls down looneyville lane!

Yes what a mess they create!

As for agnostic is concerned, I have no major issue with dont know as a 'reason for neither', however all usages, that is 'proper' usages, have to come to a position or conclusion of 'total neutrality' between two or more terms. If not they are no longer talking about agnostic.

These guys do not maintain context. An agnostic atheist is nonsense since it cant 'logically' be both at the same time.

As you succinctly pointed out there is most certainly an element, and actually a large element of 'know' in any belief.

 

that makes you infirm

That is the whole purpose for those who lack belief. They may be 99.9999% theist in their minds, but they are really atheist because they lack .0001% to be a theist!.

 

I have shown my work .. stated the same definition .. in at least half of my posts - you have now repeated my definition back to me ... in a circular labeling fallacy hole...

Observe your definition .. once you got over the gnostic moronicity

Agnostic (doesn't claim to know)

Who said otherwise .. what part of comparing Atheist to Agnostic .. not Atheist to Theist .. went deer in headlights over the last 5 or so posts ..

This is where I push the delete button mate .. lets pretend that at some point you will figure out what is being argued .. and go from there.. as of now you are in the land of fallacious definitional flatus --- circular existentialism - and borderline strawman fallacy albeit unintentional .. generally having no understanding of what is being argued .. or what you are arguing .. not understanding some of the terminology you are using .. and flip flopping definitionally in the middle .. which of course makes nonsense out of any claim.

 

Pointing out one anecdote/example favoring your side .. does not a case make. I can point out 10 on the other side .. without batting an eye. So what ? not an argument for anything.

Your claim that Atheism more militant than Theists .. remains unsubstantiated.

 

Depends on specifically what you are trying to prove
it certainly makes an element or better said a 'count' in a case

based on death toll

 

Death toll relative to what. Please don't tell me you were going to use raw numbers of deaths - from a single event or period- and tell me that makes your case that one side worse than the other --- and that you uderstand what the word "liklihood" means .. including from a statistical perspective.