Christianity is Agnostic, Not Theistic

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

No, you’re dead…fucking…wrong, LostGuy.

You’re missing the point.

YES, agnostics believe that we do not know whether God exists, but they do not believe that (necessarily) god does not exist.

Conversely, agnostics believe that we cannot disprove God’s existence, but they do not rule out that God can exist.

Don’t want to go to a dictionary because you don’t like english majors?

FINE, he’s something better for you. Here’s a quote that might help you (mind you, it’s from an ACTUAL PHILOSOPHER this time… you snobby little brat).

I don’t care what Huxley intended. The english language, and philosophy, have progressed centuries beyond that point. So I want YOU to know…

When I say agnostic, I mean, I dont think it’s possible to know whether god does or does not exist. As such, I am not in the position to state that one side is more valid than the other on faith assumption alone. Instead, I will take my life from reason, and not from … hearsay.

Si Capite?

You’re aruging over semantics when you damn well know what is meant. Get over it.

P.S.: Dictionaries are your friends. I suggest that if you do not like a definition in a dictionary, you write a letter and paste your useless-no-named John Hancock on it so that the lexicographers can laugh at you for arguing against their research methods over a simple matter of inuendo. Good Day.

22

Rafajafar, take a deep breath there buddy. Hostility and insults only detract from an otherwise good discussion. Back to the discussion…

Rafajafar said:

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that agnostics think it just as probable for there to be no god as there is for god to exist?
I think it false to say that agnostics believe that we cannot disprove God’s existence, rather that God has not yet (satisfactorally) been either proven or disproven. Agnostics do not think that god ‘does not exist’, but they do think that god ‘might not exist’

Furthermore, to quote a quote in your quote…

I have found that in these forums the opposite tends to happen just as much, christians saying they are agnostic in order to sound unbiased, when argueing with a commited athiest.

23

Well the problem is that I truly don’t know what you mean, or what anyone means when they use these terms.

Hedonist
Fat guy who lazes about and eat grapes.
-or-
Anyone in the wide variety of ethical schools who thinks pleasure is the utimate good, includeing utilitarians.

Cynic
Ansty teen whos pissed at the word.
-or-
One who holds that one should seek virtue for its own sake and any benfit to one’s happyness or well being is incidental.

The list goes on and on, and I really just wish people would take the time to learn the right definition in the first place, before we end up with four or five.

That being said you or I are probably best calling themselves agnostic, just be aware there are very few philosophers that would be an atheist in todays terms. So if they called themselves one, it probably meant- hey I’m not a theist.

24

Mentat:

I don’t care much for being civilized. You can insult me all you want, but please, support it with an actual argument. Often times people fail to see that it is not an ad hominim fallacy to merely call someone a name. It is if you use it as a premise in support of your conclusion.

For instance-
God HAS to exist, because if he didn’t, you wouldn’t be here.
Besides, you’re a construction worker, what do you know.
Therefore, god exists.

What I do (generally in response to ignorant posts like the argument above)-
You’re a moron.
God by Cartesian definition, is that which none greater can be concieved. The perfect perfection.
Perfection is a self defeating concept as one cannot prove absolute perfection, and if perfection DID exist, flaw can be found even if it’s not there.
God, by Cartesian definition, cannot exist.

Now, this person IS a moron… but that’s not at all linked to the conclusion. Just because someone is a moron, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. So you have to prove even the most retarded of posters wrong.

I also agree 100% Mentat. Your definition of agnosticism as it relates to you is just as valid as all those I listed.

LG:
The dictionary definition isn’t good enough for you? How the hell are we to agree on the definition, then. There’s lots of other views on agnostics other than Huxley’s, you know. We’re not going to agree on a definition, so that’s why there’s multiple defintion. I’m sorry, life isn’t as simple as you wish it was.

25

It’s a difficult problem. The problem really is we are not in the same game. I mean you have your dictionary, and I have mine. I haven’t studied it or anything but in general The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy has words listed the way I and my professors use them. I guess what I really object to in a general dictionary for the whole language. I mean if I want to know what a ‘quantum singularity’ is I go to Physics book not a dictionary.

I aslo think its good when at all possible to stick to the word roots. I think we do ourselves a great diservice by haveing a compound and disunified language where things can’t always be broken down into their parts. No things aren’t as simple as I want them to be, but they could be. Are language need not be so messy I don’t think.

So yeah, a dictionary is not good enough for me, but is it good enough for anyone?

26

The game is called discussion. You cannot restrict language in such a manner as you are trying.

For instance, if I were to explain a quantum singularity to…oh… I dunno… you, I wouldn’t use the physics definition. You wouldn’t understand it (not saying you COULDN’T understand it, just that you probably would not have the background to understand it). Instead, I would simplify it into a series of analogies and comparisons drawing paradigms between observable reality and quantum reality. This is why Steven Hawkings and Einstein were so successful…they knew that the definition is secondary to the idea being conveyed.

Remember, the purpose of language is to communicate, not to play games.

27

I think you mean Stephen Hawking.

28

Your problem here is one of terminology.

It is inappropriate to use the term ‘Gnostic’ here to convey your meaning.
Gnostics were a religious sect of teh early centuries A.D. who believed in the power of a certain mystical gnosis to bring them in to contact with The One/ the Father.

Gnostics were actually quite widespread in the east and west. Strangely, their theology was a mish mash of pagan and Christian ideas and one Gnostic might profess a belief in Christ while the next might not. Common to all Gnostics, however, was the idea of gnosis.

With teh increaing preoccupation of church authorities of teh Fourth century to conform others to standards of orthodxy throughout the east and west, gnosticism is presumed to have begun to die a slow death.

There are no Gnostics today, but we have benefited from the recent discovery of some texts (I think in the 1950s)- papyrus scrolls in Nag-Hammadi in Egypt, which give us an idea of some Gnostic practices.

What does this all mean in the present context?

Well, the most important thing to show, I think, is the difference between the Gnostic (for whom ‘gnosis’ or ‘knowledge’ is sufficient proof of divine revelation) and the orthodox Christian, (for whom ‘gnosis’, even if possessed, is not sufficient).

Christians of an orthodiox variety (ie. those who since the coucil of Nicaea in 325, have accorded to the agreements set there) stress the importance of faith, not ‘gnosis’ or knowledge.

Why? Because no Christian, it was decided can have ‘gnosis’: knowledge of the divine, unlike in Platonism and other theologies, does not come from anything: it is impossible, according to Christian. In fact, it is our LACK OF GNOSIS which separates us from the divine. Faith, then, is, theologically speaking, man’s equipment for reconciling himself with the divine.

Fulll Comprehension (sic gnosis) of the divine is beyond all of us, and so it is flawed to think in such terms.

The Christian does NOT know, he believes. Hence, teh all embracing power of Christianity to include both the educated and uneducated who are the same in God’s estimation if they believe.

29

Word added in bold by me

Atheist = Person who believes their is no god.
Theist = Person who has faith that there is a god.
Agnostic = Person who believes that one cannot know if there is a god or not.

Atheists put no faith in the beleifs they hold.

30

Please don’t add words into my posts. People are bound to misread that and think I wrote those words in bold… Hell, I did until I double checked.

Do you need faith to know that you don’t know something?

I don’t.

Atheists need as much faith to say that God doesn’t exist as Theists need to say he does exist.

Can you say for certain that God does not exist? Nope. There’s no proof.
So what do you use to make this statement? Faith that your answer is right.

Agnostics do not use faith because they only assert what they know or can proove.

31

I said I did it right before the quote. You’re tempting me to do it again :imp:

A conveneint delusion that allows the moderate to affirm his position. You not only say that you do not know, but also that you cannot know. A beleif/faith based statement.

According to this line of reasoning every belief one could hold, no matter how logical or how absurd requires the same amount of faith. Which includes the conclusion that you cannot and do not know. Atheists beleive theists are wrong, we do not have faith that they are wrong. Their is a subtle yet critical difference between beleif and faith. I believe that Einstein’s theory of relativity accurately describes the Universe. But I do no have faith that it does. If at any time I find information contrary to this, I will gladly change my beleif. I put no stock in my belief beyond the fact that a belief is necessary. Weather it be a belief that it is true, or false, or that I cannot know.

Then agnostics can assert nothing, and must die from an eternal state of stagnation.
You have fallen into the theist trap, they have infected you so thuroughly that you are unwilling to deny there plight. You give them credence, and call it agnosticism.
[/quote]
[/b]

32

Like I said, I had to look twice… that one little line went unnoticed at first. Just don’t do it as a courtesy. Thanks.

Belief implies opinion implies faith.

Atheists function on the belief that there is no god. This is a faith assumption.

I am an agnostic. I do not believe that I cannot know god. I believe that I do not know God… much as I know of no God.

I never said I cannot know. That would make all discussion moot. As YOU know, there are agnostic churches that explore the idea of God, as well as the idea of no God. If you’re telling these people that they are really saying they “cannot” know, then why are they bothering searching. Why do I continue to read…

So essentially, you’re saying,

Atheists = There is no God.
Agnostics = I cannot know if there’s a God.
Theists = There is a God.

What about me? I don’t fit into any of the categories. :unamused:

If you want to define them as such, fine, go the fuck ahead. I, personally, am going to continue calling myself an Agnostic and continue to eschew faith as much as reasonably possible.

I assert only what I know. It would be dogmatic to state anything more, and a sin to state anything less.

33

Rafajafar

Is it my fault you didn’t read the disclaimer preceding it?
Okay I won’t do it again, if you don’t act like a little girl again.
:laughing:

Belief and faith are two distinct concepts. Beleif is the act of accepting something as true. Faith requires that you put a certain amount of stock or dogmatic trust in your beleifs, usually in regards to what is not logical. Faith has more to do with beleiving something despite contradicting evidences. There are no such contradictions to atheism.

Then the belief that there aren’t midgets that run into your house at night and steal one sock from you, is also a faith assumption. And so is every other opinion that one could have. Just because a negative cannot be proven, doesn’t mean it requires faith to believe.

According to the law of excluded middles, there is a god or there isn’t.

Logical analyses would point that all claims of god are flawed. The veyr notion of a higher being and omni_____ lacks evidence and has many flaws. Concequently for me to give credence to such claims I would have to break logical analysis. Which leaves one possible outcome, there is no god. Untill I find a case where logic points me in a different position, I will maintain said belief.

Then how can you be so sure that any and all claims of atheism or theism require “faith” when you have not thuroughly questioned or examined said person position. Sounds a little dogmatic to me. Sounds like you have faith in your position.

NO that’s not what I’m saying at all, I simply said that, because what you said in the past led me to believe that. (Not have faith in it, just believe it.) A reasonable assumption considering your willingness to write off all positions that are contrary to yours.

34

Dupee