Comrades, Pick me Apart

[korn469]

Imran

could you believe in a god, but not know which god it was. For example you know a higher power exists, but you aren't certain if it is the judeo-christian god, or something else entirely? Would that make a person an agnostic theist?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How in the HELL do you have Agnostic Theists? Someone who is not sure but believes in God? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can be a theist and have some doubts, but if you believe in God (and thus are a theist), you cannot, by definition, by an Agnostic, who does not take a side one way or the other.

BECAUSE AGNOSTIC REFERS TO BELIEVING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, EITHER WAY.

Did you not read?

An Agnostic Theist believes in God, but says there can never be any proof of God's existence, ergo one must rely solely on faith. It is the OPPOSITE of being a Gnostic, who believes one can have absolute knowledge about God.

You're misrepresenting what it means to be an Agnostic and an Atheist! That's what the argument's about!

[Skanky Burns]

Boris is using definitions that are dissimilar to those used by many others. Like the majority of us.

However, his definitions are internally consistant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BECAUSE AGNOSTIC REFERS TO BELIEVING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, EITHER WAY.

So why would he take sides? What sense would it make for someone to say truth can never be proven, so I'll just be this?

An Agnostic Theist believes in God, but says there can never be any proof of God's existence, ergo one must rely solely on faith.

That's total BS. If someone believes there can never be proof of God's existance, then he also believes there is no heaven (ie, proof of His existance). So why is he a theist?

You're misrepresenting what it means to be an Agnostic and an Atheist!

No, it's quite the opposite. I don't know why you wish to expand 'Atheist' to encompase those who do not consider themselves atheist and never would, but I guess you have some reason. One who is neutral, doesn't not believe in either way because it is impossible to prove either way is an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

could you believe in a god, but not know which god it was. For example you know a higher power exists, but you aren't certain if it is the judeo-christian god, or something else entirely? Would that make a person an agnostic theist?

No. Because he believes that God does exist. He does not say it is impossible to know if there is a God, because he believes in him and therefore 'knows' there is a God. Otherwise, why would he believe in Him? Why would someone believe in something which he does not 'know'?

Even faith requires knowledge of God, because you believe in something. You know he exists, otherwise you have faith in something which may be nothing, and faith does not allow you to believe that you believe in nothing.

In your case the man is not certain which God exists, but you are sure he exists, which is why you believe in him.

You have described a Deist, and as one, I contend that I am definetly not Agnostic.

[Skanky Burns]

I do hope you realise you are argueing over definitions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes... Skanky.

I'm arguing that the definition that I'm using is the one that is more common and thus percieved as more 'correct'.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

BECAUSE AGNOSTIC REFERS TO BELIEVING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, EITHER WAY.

So why would he take sides? What sense would it make for someone to say truth can never be proven, so I'll just be this?

It's called Faith, Imran. Many people have it. It requires no evidence.

Quote:

An Agnostic Theist believes in God, but says there can never be any proof of God's existence, ergo one must rely solely on faith.

That's total BS. If someone believes there can never be proof of God's existance, then he also believes there is no heaven (ie, proof of His existance). So why is he a theist?

Good grief, this is irrelevant nonsense! First, all of this refers to evidence in the CURRENT MORTAL EXISTENCE. It has nothing to do with what happens (if anything) beyond death.

Second, this is painfully Christian-centric thinking, as PLENTY of religions (including certain sects of Judaism) do not believe in any afterlife at all.

Quote:

You're misrepresenting what it means to be an Agnostic and an Atheist!

No, it's quite the opposite. I don't know why you wish to expand 'Atheist' to encompase those who do not consider themselves atheist and never would, but I guess you have some reason. One who is neutral, doesn't not believe in either way because it is impossible to prove either way is an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

What part of the entomology didn't you understand?

Imran, if you're not an Theist, you must be a Atheist. It's inherent to the word. A-theist. Without-belief in God. The problem is that MOST Atheists are not of the "believe God does not exist" kind, but they get labeled as such by people like you who misuse the word Atheist. So the second they say "I'm an Atheist" to someone with the wrong idea, they get all that "How can you believe God doesn't exist?" crap, which isn't necessarily what they believe at all.

Once again--Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive terms, just as black and non-black are mutually exclusive. You can't have something be neither black nor non-black, you can't have something be neither alive nor non-alive, you can't have something be neither true nor not true, and you can't have someone being neither Theist or Non-Theist (Atheist). It's a binary proposition. 0 or 1. Either/or. True or False.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's called Faith, Imran. Many people have it. It requires no evidence.

People have faith have already made there choice and believe that God DOES exist. Or else why would they believe in him and his works? They have chosen their side.

Imran, if you're not an Theist, you must be a Atheist.

NOT IN 2003! There is more than being simply a Theist or an Atheist. As Skanky confirmed, today the middle ground where you do not believe that God can be proven, so you take no side is Agnosticism.

they get labeled as such by people like you who misuse the word Atheist.

You mean me and most of the English speaking world?

I'll take the majority's definition, thanks.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

It's called Faith, Imran. Many people have it. It requires no evidence.

People have faith have already made there choice and believe that God DOES exist. Or else why would they believe in him and his works? They have chosen their side.

What does this have to do with anything? You're missing the point entirely. Believing that the existence of God cannot be proven has NO BEARING on whether or not one believes or does not believe in God. Just because someone chooses to believe in God does not mean he thinks God has been empirically proven to be true!

Quote:

Imran, if you're not an Theist, you must be a Atheist.

NOT IN 2003! There is more than being simply a Theist or an Atheist. As Skanky confirmed, today the middle ground where you do not believe that God can be proven, so you take no side is Agnosticism.

Taking no side is NOT BELIEVING IN GOD. In order to be a Theist, you must have active BELIEF IN GOD. If you do not have belief in God, you're the opposite of a Theist. Whether it's uncertainty, skepticism or active disbelief, it is ALL a form of Atheism. The word "Atheist" encompasses EVERYTHING that is not Theist. There is no need for the word "Agnostic" to be bastardized into meaing "uncertain," because that is already covered by Atheism. It's a senseless use of the term, because nothing about the root "Gnostic" has ANYTHING to do with belief in the existence of a deity.

Quote:

they get labeled as such by people like you who misuse the word Atheist.

You mean me and most of the English speaking world?

No, you and the rest of the ignorant English speaking world. Most Atheists know the meaning, and common sense and simple understanding of basic entemology shows that "agnostic" as you are using it is completely redundant.

So Imran, you didn't answer: What is something that is neither black nor non-black?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So Imran, you didn't answer: What is something that is neither black nor non-black?

Doesn't respond to light.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is something that is neither black nor non-black?

Grey (neither black nor non-black) .

The rest of the world views Theism and Atheism and simply two poles. It puts them on poles, with the center being Agnosticism. I can appreciate that you Atheists wish to increase your numbers by saying Agnostics are really Atheists, but the majority of the people do not believe this.

[Kramerman]

Gnostic

is that pronounced "Nostic", or "G'Nostic"?

[Drake Tungsten]

Not the argument about the definition of "agnostic" again...

Give it up, Boris. Usage dictates definition. Being a pedant won't turn back time and make "agnostic" mean what you want it to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh... I didn't realize this had already been debated to death .

My bad... let's just like this get back on topic, I'm sure Uber is pissed enough as it is .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

What is something that is neither black nor non-black?

Grey (neither black nor non-black) .

Duh, grey is non-black, Mr. Smartypants... I rest my case!

And that's how the rest of the world views Theism and Atheism. It puts them on poles, with the center being Agnostic. I can appreciate that you Atheists wish to increase your numbers by saying Agnostics are really Atheists, but the majority of the people do not believe this.

It has nothing to do with wanting to increase numbers. My metaphysical beliefs are EXACTLY THE SAME as Ubers. There is no theological difference in what we believe. You're just using your lawyerly slipperiness to dodge the point that you can't have anything other than a Theist or an Atheist. A-Theism defines EVERYTHING that isn't Theistic, period.

Most people who call themselves Athiests are of the weak Athiest variety. VERY FEW ascribe to the strong Athiest position. You're the one ascribing to a faulty definition, not I. The "Agnosticism" you're ascribing to is a subset of Atheistic beliefs, it's that simple. I must point out that my Webster's Dictionary does NOT define Agnosticism the way you are, it ONLY gives the definition as one who believes there cannot be any evidence for or against God.

What's neither positive nor not positive?

What's neither 1 nor not 1?

What's neithe true nor not true?

What's neither metal nor not metal?

What's neither theist nor not theist?

Those questions all have the same answer: nothing, there are no in-betweens.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh... I didn't realize this had already been debated to death.

Consider yourself lucky.

My bad... let's just like this get back on topic, I'm sure Uber is pissed enough as it is.

Sounds like a good plan. It would be kinda shitty of us to threadjack a serious thread of his into oblivion.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Give it up, Boris. Usage dictates definition. Being a pedant won't turn back time and make "agnostic" mean what you want it to.

Right, so if a bunch of people start using the word "Hindu" and ascribing to it the tenets of Satanism, or Islam, then Hindus should just accept the mass misrepresentation of their beliefs, sure.

The core of the argument isn't about "agnostic," it's about the misrepresentation of Atheists as believing there is no god, when the majority of athiests merely just do not believe God exists.

[Drake Tungsten]

Right, so if a bunch of people start using the word "Hindu" and ascribing to it the tenets of Satanism, or Islam, then Hindus should just accept the mass misrepresentation of their beliefs, sure.

You didn't really mean to write that, did you? You have more sense than that.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The core of the argument isn't about "agnostic," it's about the misrepresentation of Atheists as believing there is no god, when the majority of athiests merely just do not believe God exists.

So you are saying that atheism is an "absence of belief", whereas most people think of it as a "belief of absence"?

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Duh, grey is non-black

No, grey is also black and non-black at the same time. It is a mixture of black and white. I can't put it into a catagory.

What's neither theist nor not theist?

Those questions all have the same answer: nothing, there are no in-betweens.

The problem is that you think that not theist means atheist, which it doesn't anymore. Not theist encompases atheist AND agnosticism, and that is how the word is used.

so if a bunch of people start using the word "Hindu" and ascribing to it the tenets of Satanism, or Islam, then Hindus should just accept the mass misrepresentation of their beliefs, sure.

If the majority of the world define the combination of letters 'H-i-n-d-u' to be Satanism, then it is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tuberski
So you are saying that atheism is an "absence of belief", whereas most people think of it as a "belief of absence"?

ACK!

Exactly. Although, Atheism covers both of these sets of beliefs. It encompasses anything that isn't belief in god.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Exactly. Although, Atheism covers both of these sets of beliefs. It encompasses anything that isn't belief in god.

Witchcraft and wiccan, druids?

ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Duh, grey is non-black

No, grey is also black and non-black at the same time. It is a mixture of black and white. I can't put it into a catagory.

This is so painfully wrong it's funny!

Imran, grey is NOT black. Black is black. When you mix black with white and get grey, it's no longer black! It's not-black! It can be put into a category: not black!

The problem is that you think that not theist means atheist, which it doesn't anymore. Not theist encompases atheist AND agnosticism, and that is how the word is used.

Imran, not theist DOES mean athiest. Athiest encompasses anything not theist! Look at the word! A- = Not. Not Theist. Music that isn't tonal is Atonal. Something that isn't symmetrical is asymmetrical. Someone who isn't Theist is Atheist. As I said, simply entemology

If the majority of the world define the combination of letters 'H-i-n-d-u' to be Satanism, then it is.

yet once again you've painted yourself into a corner of saying something so patently absurd, it's unbelievable. I'm just sorry loinburger hasn't seen this one yet. We'll add it to 2+2=5.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Witchcraft and wiccan, druids?

ACK!

I'm not sure of the details of these beliefs, but in order to be "theistic" they must believe in a god or gods. Do these groups believe in any supernatural beings or forces that are responsible for how the universe works? If so, they are theists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Athiest encompasses anything not theist! Look at the word! A- = Not.

NOT ANYMORE! In this day and age, not theist is divided into agnostic or atheist.

Btw, Tuberki's point is good. What about Wiccans and Druids? Atheists?

yet once again you've painted yourself into a corner of saying something so patently absurd, it's unbelievable.

Why is it? Usage determines defintion. If the majority of the people believed Hindu means Satanism, then that is what it is. The minority Hindus may not like it, but if the majority decides that's the true meaning... well, little they can do about it.

There are many words in English that mean totally different things in other languages. However, if the majority of English speakers believe the word to mean one thing, then that is what it means, even if to someone else it means something entirely different.

For example, the word: Indian as refering to natives of the Americas. Totally wrong word, but since the majority believes it refers to Native Americans, it does.

How do you think words change meaning? Because the majority of the people choose to redefine them. What is so silly about that?

[Velociryx]

Let me try!

Someone who is not the brightest crayon in the box can be described as either:

a- moron

or

a- dumba$$

Anyone who believes that detailed, done-to-death semantics discussions have particular relavance to Uber's otherwise thought-provoking thread surely fall into this category....

-=Vel=-
$0.02

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Let me try!

Someone who is not the brightest crayon in the box can be described as either:

a- moron

or

a- dumba$$

Anyone who believes that detailed, done-to-death semantics discussions have particular relavance to Uber's otherwise thought-provoking thread surely fall into this category....

-=Vel=-
$0.02

I prefer to be known as an Amoron or an Adumba$$, thank you very much.....



ACK!

[Velociryx]

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And thank you for taking that in the spirit in which it was intended. Nobody here is either of those things, however, clearly it (the semantics discussion) has got BEANS to do with the topic Uber was hoping to see discussed.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

I agree with that about 90%.

It was one of the many topics he discussed. So it is relevant......to a point.

ACK!