re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #1

Post by William »

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists can believe in ghosts et al, without believing in "GOD(s)" {SOURCE ARTICLE}.

However, when examining the source article what we find is that the study is done with individuals "Self Declaring to being atheists" and that "agnostic atheists" appear to be most affected by the "irrational thinking of the religious"
_________________________________________

re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Q: Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

My own position on the question, is Agnostic Neutral and therefore I do not have any beliefs re such things as ghosts and spirits, astrology, reincarnation, or think that some people have magical powers, that the article says atheist's can and do have belief in.
Last edited by William on Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #51

Post by Purple Knight »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:43 pmAtheism itself does nothing, but atheists simply don't buy into morality that is based solely on "God says...."
It really burns my biscuits but a lot of people I know personally, most of whom are atheists, instead of "God says" will just get indignant and pretend I'm stupid for asking about the justifications of morality. It ends up the same: They don't have to justify a single thing, even when they apply it to me, as in, "Well, you have to, _____ [because that's just moral]" or "You can't do ______ [because that's immoral]." It might be human nature to be this way and that might even be the reason religion exists.

I'm not looking to poke holes in anything. I'm simply looking for a good reason I can use next time so that the constraints on my behaviour can be the same as the constraints on the behaviour of others. And there is never such a reason.

Maybe I'm being stubborn or mean or even immoral by wanting to be treated the same as others. That's what it feels like, anyway, because all I want is a good reason I can use when someone says it's not the case (which they always do the very second it would benefit me for it to be the case) and everyone I have ever asked has acted like I'm being rude for asking.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #52

Post by William »

Post #30 clearly explains my thoughts on the subject. Agnostic atheist is an unnecessary term, since Agnostic is its own position and not a sub set of Atheism.

If anyone has a problem with understanding or has any argument against the the content of Post #30 they can say so.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #53

Post by William »

On Agnosticism With OAIC.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary
re the question of GOD.
Agnosticism:
the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not


OAIC: That's correct! Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven. An agnostic person may believe that the existence of God is unknowable or may simply refrain from making any claims about God's existence.

William: I am not sure whether it is possible or not. I don't know what position I would come under...re the question...

OAIC: In that case, you could consider yourself an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a commitment to a particular belief or disbelief in God, but rather a recognition of the limitations of human knowledge and the possibility that the existence of God may be unknowable. If you are unsure or have not made up your mind about the existence of God, you could consider yourself an agnostic.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary an agnostic is a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. I do not believe that it is or is not possible to know whether GOD exists or not....

OAIC: If you do not believe that it is possible or not possible to know whether God exists, then you could consider yourself a "soft agnostic" or "agnostic skeptic". This position holds that the existence of God is unknown and may be unknowable, but stops short of making a strong claim about the unknowability of God's existence. Essentially, a soft agnostic neither affirms nor denies the existence of God, but rather takes a stance of skepticism or uncertainty about the matter.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. No exact match found for “ soft agnostic” in English

OAIC: My apologies, you are correct. The term "soft agnostic" or "agnostic skeptic" may not be found in the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, as it is not a commonly used term in academic or philosophical circles. The concept is often used informally to describe someone who holds a position of uncertainty or skepticism regarding the existence of God, but it is not a widely recognized or defined term.

William: So the concept is just how some folk decide to define folk in said position. They want to keep folk under the agnostic label, but it doesn't accurately describe my position, and in relation to forum debate settings, my confusion has been because - up until now, I had not realized this...

OAIC: Yes, that is correct. The terms used to describe an individual's beliefs and perspectives on religious matters can vary, and the labels used may not always accurately reflect a person's views. It's important to remember that the labels and definitions used to describe religious and philosophical beliefs are not always set in stone, and can sometimes be a source of confusion or misinterpretation. It's always best to clarify one's own beliefs and communicate them clearly in any discussions or debates.

William: So on the question of GOD - according to my position, I am not Atheist, Antitheist, Agnostic or Theist...

OAIC: If you do not identify with any of the commonly used labels such as atheist, antitheist, agnostic, or theist, then you can simply consider yourself as having your own unique perspective on the question of God. Everyone has the right to define their own beliefs and views, and it's important to respect that diversity of perspectives. It's also important to remember that beliefs can evolve and change over time, and it's okay to not have a clear answer or to be uncertain about certain questions.

William: Yes. I still can give my opinion on the question of GOD without identifying with any of those commonly used labels.

OAIC: Absolutely! You can certainly express your own thoughts, ideas, and opinions on the question of God without being limited by any particular label or definition. It is important to engage in respectful and open-minded discussions about such topics, and to be able to express oneself freely and clearly, regardless of the labels one might or might not use.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #54

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:07 pm On Agnosticism With OAIC.
Who are you quoting and having this conversation with?
What's an OAIC?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #55

Post by William »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:18 am
William wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:07 pm On Agnosticism With OAIC.
Who are you quoting and having this conversation with?
What's an OAIC?
I find your question strange. I don't need to know who/what "Clownboat" is, in order to have a conversation with you.
If you have any issue with the conversation I posted, I am happy to have conversation with you about said issues.

Otherwise, I am satisfied that the context of the conversation between myself and OAIC has solved the problem. A-theists, Antitheists, Agnostics and Theists are different positions from my own, re the question of GOD.

My confusion simply came about because I was trying to find where my particular position fitted with those ones, assuming those ones were the only possible positions anyone could have re the question.

Once it became apparent to me that the assumption was incorrect, the confusion ceased.

The thread question now holds no relevance to me.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #56

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:28 pm I find your question strange. I don't need to know who/what "Clownboat" is, in order to have a conversation with you.
No one has claimed that you need to know who or what Clownboat is in order to have a converstaion. However, if you were referring to Clownboat as CB and someone asked you who CB was, it would be prudent for you to clarify that when you us CB, you are referring to Clownboat. How on earth can you find this as strange!
If you have any issue with the conversation I posted, I am happy to have conversation with you about said issues.
I didn't have any issues, but I do have two questions.
Once again:
"Who are you quoting and having this conversation with?"
"What's an OAIC?"

Otherwise, I am satisfied that the context of the conversation between myself and OAIC has solved the problem.

I am so glad you are satisfied.
"Who are you quoting and having this conversation with?"
"What's an OAIC?"

Is it an abbreviation for a forum user's name?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #57

Post by William »

OAIC = Open Artificial Intelligence Chatbot.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #58

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:50 pm OAIC = Open Artificial Intelligence Chatbot.
Thanks for clarifying.
I have other questions, but I don't think they would further the debate. So I will leave them un-asked.

Be well...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #59

Post by William »


User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Post #60

Post by Purple Knight »

Davado wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:52 pm What do you call a man who believes the Bible true but rejects it. I don't like God and want no part of him or his absurd salvation. ,What am I called ?
A decent person imo.

I wish this had a name because this describes me too, at least to a point. I don't believe the Bible is true but if it is I reject God because I don't think he's good. I don't believe one being can have that kind of moral authority over another being: To hurt them and just declare it's righteous.

So maybe I should coin the term.

Moral Equalist.

Post Reply