Atheism 101: What is agnosticism....really?

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that there are atheists that do accept the possibility of the existence of some particular gods? That would seem to contradict the definition of atheism. "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." American Heritage Dictionary
If you don't deny any possible existence of a higher power I don't think you can legitimately call yourself an atheist.(You’re more of an agnostic.)

Atheism and agnosticism are *not* mutually exclusive.

I said agnosticism is the only rational position.

I also said, I have assigned a probability to all the gods that I am aware of, and this probability leans toward 'atheism' in varying degrees.

Big Al wrote:

Also, you are correct; I do not believe that Zeus exists, but Zeus is only a human concept of a higher power in the same sense as Yahweh or the Father in Heaven. I don't think any human concept of a higher power is correct but I don't deny the possible existence of a higher power.

I can not rationally assess a god I am not aware of. So I must concede 'maybe'.

There was a time when I leaned toward 'probably' but only slightly.

Then I asked my self why I did. I had no rational answer other than residual indoctrination I endured in my youth.

I later realized;
Unless we clearly define what this hypothetical 'supernatural power' is, it is not rational for me to lean to either side of 'maybe' or 'maybe not'- or does v does not exist.

THEN as more years go by, and the lack of any evidence of *anything*'supernatural'- this completely rational and centered 'maybe' I had slowly shifted *slightly* to the side of 'maybe not'- but is far from any certainty.

This was because of the utter lack of any evidence of anything 'supernatural'. After so many years, I would have *had* to have been exposed to *something* inexplicable.... but it never happened.

So a smidgen of doubt exists on this hypothetical unknown supernatural power. Again, is no where near the certainty I have for when I drop a ball it will fall to the ground.

An agnostic is ultimately somebody who really doesn't give a shit about getting into endless debates with religious zealots...

Big Al wrote:

I disagree. The term agnostic is not at all meaningless. It means I don't know. It signifies humility. Mrs. Narciso says "Atheism is 'without belief in gods.' That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less." I don't believe that is true at all. All of the people that I know who call themselves atheists flat out deny that there is a god. That makes them gnostics in the same sense as religious gnostics. They think they know. She is however, correct in saying, "There is no agnosis--simply by virtue of the fact that we are all agnostic." Simply put, nobody really knows.

I agree with what you just said and have trouble understanding how others can refute this.

---------

There is a god I believe in god

Or...

There is no god I don't believe in god
----

Lack of evidence is not the evidence that's lacking. I don't care which side of the fence you're on.

To an atheist...

You could say there is no proof of god and acknowledge that. But to say there is no god would be a claim that misleads people...that would mean that there would be evidence to prove so.

But there isn't.

Can't be proven
Can't be disproven

So there could be no strong foundation on either side of that debate...if you break it down to a fundamental element you can conclude that both parties are working off of the same logic.

They work off of belief with no concrete evidence to support either side of the debate.

To me It's like people are looking in the wrong places to answer a question that hasn't been asked.

Lacking evidence.

So I sit back and say " well I just don't know then".

Because I don't...and neither do you.

No matter how ridiculous any claims are. Without proof I cannot know.

Isn't truth absolute.

or I could just be full of bs...
But I can accept that...
That's a problem most people have they don't want to be wrong.

Too cought up in our own predispositions.

Fauxx wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with what you just said and have trouble understanding how others can refute this.
---------
There is a god I believe in god
Or...
There is no god I don't believe in god

First?

You have to be specific, or else it's just a silly bit of empty philosophizing.

Take #1, "There is a god I believe in god".

You >>have<< to be >>specific<<: >>which<< god would that be?

You have to describe this god-being in such a way, that it may be correctly identified from all the >>other<< god-descriptions from throughout history.

Same for #2: "There is no god I don't believe in god"

Specifics. Certainly, in either case the completely-general statement "god" is utterly devoid of any real meaning.

If you define "god" as "energy", then it is just a matter of laboratory experiments, showing energy is real, etc.

But the undefined term "god" is really without any meaning at all.

So both of your statements, from the start, are devoid of any meaning as well.

You could have just as easily substituted "foo-bar" for "god" and the usefulness of both your statements would remain unchanged.

That is, very little.

----------

If, on the other hand, you choose a >>specific<< god?

Then, it becomes >>interesting<<.

Take the bible god as an example: this god is very strictly defined by the bible itself. What this god does, what this god will do, and so forth-- all laid out in rigid rules from within the bible.

For example: the bible god >>cannot<< forgive, >>unless<< someone is brutally murdered and much blood is spilled everywhere. The bible is quite clear on this: it's god is a bloody death-merchant, trading forgiveness for blood and death.

But I digress: once a >>specific<< god is defined?

Then, it becomes >>quite<< easy to prove or disprove said god is real.

All you must do, is exercise the rules from the defining book(s).

Again, the bible-god as an example: the bible gives a >>specific<< set of conditions, wherein the bible-god >>must<< respond in a specific way.

Good! Now we can use these conditions as a test, to see if the bible god actually responds!

(Sadly for bible-worshipers, the bible god is obviously fraud, as he >>never<< >>ever<< responds to these conditions. Not even one time.)

We can easily apply this same method to the Quoran's god (fraud), the Book of Mormon's god (fraud), the Hindu holy books' various gods (fraud) and so on.

In fact? To date, >>all<< of the various gods of these "holy" books have proven to be false gods.

How about that?

Perhaps you can provide us with an example of a non-fraud book?