A defintion of Atheism.

[televator]

Greetings,

If they don't go either way then they are an atheist by definition as they hold no faith in gods. To say "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question.

This is where I, and other Agnostics, object to being categorized as "atheist", as the default.

Our position is one based on knowledge rather than belief, since belief - or lack thereof - does not make something true or false.

Such categorizing - theist or atheist - is a false dichotomy.

At one time in my life, I believed in God - now, I don't know if there is a God or not; that is not to say that I don't believe there is a God.

I simply don't know.

But what happened to your positive belief? You retracted it no? Furthermore you just stated that not knowing something isn't to say you believe it or not...which is exactly what we're talking about. Belief =/= Knowledge, yet belief can be dependent on knowledge if you value that sort of logical pathway on a certain subject. For many atheists Knowledge precedes belief on their position.

 

[unkerpaulie]

Greetings,

If they don't go either way then they are an atheist by definition as they hold no faith in gods. To say "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question.

This is where I, and other Agnostics, object to being categorized as "atheist", as the default.

Our position is one based on knowledge rather than belief, since belief - or lack thereof - does not make something true or false.

Such categorizing - theist or atheist - is a false dichotomy.

At one time in my life, I believed in God - now, I don't know if there is a God or not; that is not to say that I don't believe there is a God.

I simply don't know.

Like you, I also started with a belief in God, then as I learned more and explored the idea of God himself, at one point I also didn't know if there was a God or not. I always see agnosticism as a transition stage, and not a final ending point. Not knowing if God exists or not, i.e., knowing that either is possible, is a big deal, particularly if you come from a theist and religious background. It simply would not do for me to resign to the idea that the truth about the existence of God cannot be known. So I continued to search for answers. Now I am at the point where I am convinced, to the extent that I can assert that I know, that God does not exist.

I agree with you that anything to do with theism and the spirit realm is based on belief, and the only position of knowledge one can have pertaining to God is the lack of knowledge. Even if you can assert you know, you are merely asserting that you believe strongly. And really its no different from anything else you claim to know. This is why I said, the distinction between knowledge and belief really doesn't exist, because if you say you know something, you are really saying you strongly believe that thing, and the degree of your conviction is not absolute, just higher than something you consider as just a belief. In other words, belief and knowledge are just 2 points on a conviction scale, so to speak. If we describe (a)gnostic in terms of knowledge and (a)theism in terms of belief, then putting "gnostic" in front of atheist or theist makes no sense, because you cannot have knowledge about a belief, only varying levels of conviction.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

This is where I, and other Agnostics, object to being categorized as "atheist", as the default.

Our position is one based on knowledge rather than belief, since belief - or lack thereof - does not make something true or false.

Such categorizing - theist or atheist - is a false dichotomy.

At one time in my life, I believed in God - now, I don't know if there is a God or not; that is not to say that I don't believe there is a God.

I simply don't know.

But what happened to your positive belief? You retracted it no? Furthermore you just stated that not knowing something isn't to say you believe it or not...which is exactly what we're talking about. Belief =/= Knowledge, yet belief can be dependent on knowledge if you value that sort of logical pathway on a certain subject. For many atheists Knowledge precedes belief on their position.

Perhaps I should have said, "At one time in my life, I actively believed in God".

My point being that, if you asked someone, "Do you believe there's a God?", one person - a theist - will answer, "Yes, I *do* believe there is a God!". Another person - a atheist - will reply, "No, I *don't* believe there's a God!".

But there are those - myself included - who'll shrug and say, "I don't know if there's a God, so I can't say whether I believe or not".

And, as you say, knowledge does - or, at least, can - precede belief: which is why I object to being defaulted to "atheist" in terms of belief, despite - or because of - admitting to a lack of knowledge.

At this point in my "spiritual journey", I could argue from either paradigm - theistic or atheistic.

I could put on my former "theist hat", and argue for theistic evolution, for example. Equally, I could put on a "atheist hat", and argue for a purely naturalistic universe.

That doesn't mean that I actually believe in either position.

So, when can we know - absolutely - whether there's a God or not?

When we die: that's the earliest point at which we could possible learn the truth. And then only if there's life-after-death!

And I don't know about that either.

For me, being a Agnostic for the rest of my life makes perfect sense.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Like you, I also started with a belief in God, then as I learned more and explored the idea of God himself, at one point I also didn't know if there was a God or not. I always see agnosticism as a transition stage, and not a final ending point. Not knowing if God exists or not, i.e., knowing that either is possible, is a big deal, particularly if you come from a theist and religious background. It simply would not do for me to resign to the idea that the truth about the existence of God cannot be known. So I continued to search for answers. Now I am at the point where I am convinced, to the extent that I can assert that I know, that God does not exist.

Actually, there's a misunderstanding regarding whether God is "knowable" or not - apart from whether one can "know" if a God exists or not.

In terms of the "know-ability" of God, it depends on whether there's life-after-death or not.

There are four possible combinations of God's existence and life-after-death.

Let's call them "EOG" (existence of God or not), and "LAD" (life-after-death or not).

LAD - EOG
Yes - Yes - Theism

This is the classic theist position: obviously, if God exists, there's life-after-death, and - therefore, we can "know" God.

LAD - EOG
Yes - No - Theravada (atheistic) Buddhism [There may be other similar religions.]

Here, although there's life-after-death, there's no God - we find out that there's no God and we can't "know" God, because there isn't one.

LAD - EOG
No -Yes - Deism

The classic deist position: even though God exists, since there's no life-after-death, we don't find that out nor can we ever "know" God - God is "unknowable". We don't even get a moment of "Oh, there's no God,..." before dying, because nothing survives death to allow us to find out.

LAD - EOG
No -No - Naturalism/Materialism

Here, clearly, there's neither life-after-death nor a God - this is the naturalistic position.

In only two of the above - Theism and Theravada Buddhism - will we *know* whether there's a God or not. In only one case - Theism - is God "knowable"; for the other three, God is "unknowable".

I agree with you that anything to do with theism and the spirit realm is based on belief, and the only position of knowledge one can have pertaining to God is the lack of knowledge. Even if you can assert you know, you are merely asserting that you believe strongly. And really its no different from anything else you claim to know. This is why I said, the distinction between knowledge and belief really doesn't exist, because if you say you know something, you are really saying you strongly believe that thing, and the degree of your conviction is not absolute, just higher than something you consider as just a belief. In other words, belief and knowledge are just 2 points on a conviction scale, so to speak. If we describe (a)gnostic in terms of knowledge and (a)theism in terms of belief, then putting "gnostic" in front of atheist or theist makes no sense, because you cannot have knowledge about a belief, only varying levels of conviction.

Although I understand what you're saying and how you view these, as you can see from my above explanation, I distinguish between "knowing" and "believing".

Which is why I call myself Agnostic and will be at least until I die.

Kindest regards,

James