• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lack of Believe vs Belief in Lack of

Altfish

Veteran Member
Here's some evidence! :p

th
Well, I'll be darned, they do exist.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Could you please elaborate on the difference between "I don't think anything divine exists" and "I believe nothing divine exists?" Hint: there's literally none.

More like 'I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude there is a god or gods.' This statement isn't a definitive 'gods do not exist.' It's a position of skepticism that can be changed circumstantially. Hence agnostic atheist.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
More like 'I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude there is a god or gods.' This statement isn't a definitive 'gods do not exist.' It's a position of skepticism that can be changed circumstantially. Hence agnostic atheist.

The agnostic would also recognize that there's no ability to reject deities either. The atheist makes a judgement call based on the information provided and decides to take a stance on it. Again same as a theist.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
More like 'I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude there is a god or gods.' This statement isn't a definitive 'gods do not exist.' It's a position of skepticism that can be changed circumstantially. Hence agnostic atheist.
Right, but to parse that: the part that's agnostic, rather than atheist, is the part that recognizes no truth value for question of god's existence, and the part that is atheist, rather than agnostic, is the part that doesn't believe in god or gods. Agnosticism doesn't say anything about atheism, or vice-versa.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The agnostic would also recognize that there's no ability to reject deities either. The atheist makes a judgement call based on the information provided and decides to take a stance on it. Again same as a theist.
Agnostic just means without knowledge. It is a non-declarative statement. It modified the statement being made so it shouldn't be parsed in such a way.
I am unconvinced of the existence of gods =! Gods do not exist.
And, as someone said before with the gumball reference, the answer shouldn't be static anyway, but dependent on how 'god(s)' are defined. I am much more certain that the god of the bible is false than animistic gods or a pantheistic version of gods.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
The agnostic would also recognize that there's no ability to reject deities either. The atheist makes a judgement call based on the information provided and decides to take a stance on it. Again same as a theist.
The weak atheist makes no judgment calls and takes no stance. A strong atheist does.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I am unconvinced of the existence of gods =! Gods do not exist.
People are not gumball machines. A belief is a belief in something that's true, and if the atheist is the one who doesn't believe in god or gods, it's because god or gods doesn't ring true.

Not true = false.

That stands in contrast to "I can't say it's true," which, of course, is in no sense atheism.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
People are not gumball machines. A belief is a belief in something that's true, and if the atheist is the one who doesn't believe in god or gods, it's because god or gods doesn't ring true.

Not true = false.

That stands in contrast to "I can't say it's true," which, of course, is in no sense atheism.

The gumball is in reference to trying to ascertain the number of gumballs in a jar. You can freely admit you don't know how many gumballs there are but also be reasonably certain there aren't 5 or 2,000. In this scenario the question is more than 'how many gumballs are there' but 'are there this many gumballs'.

'I can't say it's true (or false) but I remain skeptical' = agnostic atheism.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
The gumball is in reference to trying to ascertain the number of gumballs in a jar. You can freely admit you don't know how many gumballs there are but also be reasonably certain there aren't 5 or 2,000. In this scenario the question is more than 'how many gumballs are there' but 'are there this many gumballs'.

'I can't say it's true (or false) but I remain skeptical' = agnostic atheism.
Yes, it's a reference to pure agnosticism.

"I can't say it's true (or not)."
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
If even gumballs is "belief in god," then uneven gumballs is "no belief in god," and not being able to judge either way is pure agnosticism, in the best sense that Thomas Huxley meant it to be.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If even gumballs is "belief in god," then uneven gumballs is "no belief in god," and not being able to judge either way is pure agnosticism, in the best sense that Thomas Huxley meant it to be.
'True agnosticism' (which I'm not even sure is a real thing) wouldn't make qualifiers like 'it's not 5' or 'it's not 2,000.' If anything it's more like ignostics, who don't say the answer is unknowable but dependent on what you mean by 'god.' I believe some conceptions of god can't exist. Some might. I also think that my answer would be changed if we found enough evidence to reasonably conclude brane cosmology, because it leaves no room for universe creating gods, only gods that didn't create the universe.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
'True agnosticism' (which I'm not even sure is a real thing)...
Thomas Huxley would tell you it is...

...wouldn't make qualifiers like 'it's not 5' or 'it's not 2,000.'
Indeed, it wouldn't. That's atheism, not agnosticism.

If anything it's more like ignostics, who don't say the answer is unknowable but dependent on what you mean by 'god.'
The ignostic would suggest that there is no such thing as a number, whether it be 5 or 2,000. But that's a whole other thing.

I believe some conceptions of god can't exist. Some might. I also think that my answer would be changed if we found enough evidence to reasonably conclude brane cosmology, because it leaves no room for universe creating gods, only gods that didn't create the universe.
One conception of god cannot exist: that which surpasses either existence or non-existence.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Thomas Huxley would tell you it is...


Indeed, it wouldn't. That's atheism, not agnosticism.


The ignostic would suggest that there is no such thing as a number, whether it be 5 or 2,000. But that's a whole other thing.


One conception of god cannot exist: that which surpasses either existence or non-existence.

I don't recognize Huxley as the definitive perspective on agnosticism any more than Darwin on evolution. Just like because agnostic atheism want coined until after Huxley doesn't effect its usefulness as a term. Language, theology and philosophy all evolve.

It's also agnostic a/theism.

No, ignostics would have you define the jar. They would also have qualifiers like 'if the jar is this big it can't contain this many gumballs.'

I think lots of gods can't be reasonably said to exist, but that's a long road off topic.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I don't recognize Huxley as the definitive perspective on agnosticism any more than Darwin on evolution. Just like because agnostic atheism want coined until after Huxley doesn't effect its usefulness as a term. Language, theology and philosophy all evolve.
Conjoined words are indeed useful. That doesn't equate them, though.

It's also agnostic a/theism.

No, ignostics would have you define the jar. They would also have qualifiers like 'if the jar is this big it can't contain this many gumballs.'

I think lots of gods can't be reasonably said to exist, but that's a long road off topic.
Defining the jar has nothing to do with how many gumballs there are. Ignostics aren't stupid.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Conjoined words are indeed useful. That doesn't equate them, though.


Defining the jar has nothing to do with how many gumballs there are. Ignostics aren't stupid.

I didn't say they equated. But their usage together creates unique meaning.

Defining the jar, as in defining its size and shape, would indeed tell you a lot about the number of gumballs.

Alright. I think we are off the beaten path now.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Lol, alright the gumball analogy is getting out of hand.

Would everyone agree that at least the agnostic believes that they do not know?
 
Top