Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these terms)

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

SomePunk
Scholar
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 11:51 pm

Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these terms)

Post #1

Post by SomePunk »

If you disagree with religion then you are non-religious. Meaning religiosity isn’t something you take part in.

Atheism isn’t a worldview, yet it is the denial, doubt or rejection of any belief in god or the possibility that any god (could) exist. If someone doesn’t believe (whether it be in rose petals, goblins, their spouse or god) then they are an atheist. There is no room for skepticism other than some quack ideas about something they know little to nothing about, that nothing being god – if god exists, because atheist don’t know and don’t care to know and tend to follow the same old false dichotomy like many theist. This is a black and white way of thinking (example): “It’s either my way or the highway!�

Agnosticism is like a wacky conundrum that people sometimes mistake for atheism, which it is not. It is a position of neutrality between atheism and theism. A neutral position would also reject both atheism and theism and make no claims about either or, besides disagreeing with both positions, because neither one is plausible. That does not mean an agnostic does not or does believe in any god or excludes the possibility that any god exists.

Discuss!

I also posted this somewhere else (another forums) but wanted to know what people think about terms and such. You can post a definition for theism since I didn't and disagree with my definitions of agnosticism and atheism. :bored:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these term

Post #11

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 10 by McCulloch]

If you honestly don't know what is meant by the term God, then surely you cannot possibly believe in God's existence?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these term

Post #12

Post by Divine Insight »

McCulloch wrote: Strong ignosticism takes it a step further and claims that all definitions of God currently in use are either simplistic and easily refuted or incoherent beyond comprehension.
What does it mean to be "incoherent beyond comprehension"?

Wouldn't the very idea of a God necessarily be beyond human comprehension? Why should we expect to comprehend a God? We can't even comprehend what we already know about the physical universe. At least not in any depth of claiming to have a comprehensible understanding of it.

It would seem to me that the very proposition of a "God" requires that we allow that this entity can be beyond our ability to comprehend.

One of the things that has always been my greatest concern is the idea of a God that fully understands its own existence and has no questions. It knows what it is, how it came to be, or how it could always have existed, and cannot have any unanswered questions about its own existence. For it does not fully understand its own true nature then it would be in the same boat we're in.

Yet, humans most certainly could never imagine having such a complete understanding of our nature that we no longer have any unanswered questions. Therefore to imagine an entity that has such profound knowledge, would necessarily require that it is ultimately incomprehensible to us. This would be part of the nature of what a "God" must have.

As humans, let's imagine that science ultimately reveals to us that we are made of vibrating strings. That may be the ultimate answer in science. But if that is our answer, then we would still have absolutely NO CLUE why we exist. In other words, we would still have the open question of where these vibrating strings came from in the first place, and why did they have the property to be able to vibrate in ways that can produce us. In short, this scientific answer would be "no answer" at all really. We would still be just as clueless as we were before we discovered that we are made of vibrating strings.

If we're going to imagine a "God" we must necessarily imagine that there is nothing it does not know. Why? Because if it can't even answer the question of its very own existence then its in no better shape than we are. In fact, at that point why even call it a "God"? May as well just call it an entity that has no clue why it exists, just like us. In fact, a "God" who doesn't know the answers to its own existence couldn't say whether it was itself created by yet another imagined entity.

So it seems to me that a God necessarily must have this characteristic of knowing its own true nature. And that would automatically place it in a situation that is "incomprehensible" to us. How are we going to expect to comprehend an entity that has no questions about its own existence?

In fact, this very idea that an entity could exist that has absolutely no questions about its very own nature of existence seems impossible to me. So for this reason I could also conclude that the very idea of such an entity may very well be impossible. But doesn't that then result in me demanding that this "God" must be as incompetent as myself? That seems to take everything full circle and basically say that a "God" must not exist simply because it would need to be far above human cognition. But according to mathematics that idea is not all that far-fetched. This "God" could exist as an infinitely dimensional entity, whilst we exist in only 3 or 4 dimensions. Perhaps the key to understanding how we can exist with no questions remaining resides in being able to experience reality in all of its dimensions simultaneously. God can see why it exists. We cannot.

And this is why it is "incomprehensible" to us. If that's the case then we should EXPECT a God concept to be incomprehensible to us.

Of course, this wouldn't excuse the extreme self-contradictions of the Bible. But it does loan some credibility to mystical philosophies that propose ideas of a "God" that might actually possess traits that seem incomprehensible to us.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these term

Post #13

Post by Talishi »

Divine Insight wrote: Wouldn't the very idea of a God necessarily be beyond human comprehension? Why should we expect to comprehend a God? We can't even comprehend what we already know about the physical universe. At least not in any depth of claiming to have a comprehensible understanding of it.
I find it difficult to accept that we can comprehend how to send a probe to Pluto and get almost airplane-level views of the surface, but we can't comprehend a character cooked up by Bronze Age goatherds to explain the world as they saw it.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these term

Post #14

Post by Divine Insight »

Talishi wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Wouldn't the very idea of a God necessarily be beyond human comprehension? Why should we expect to comprehend a God? We can't even comprehend what we already know about the physical universe. At least not in any depth of claiming to have a comprehensible understanding of it.
I find it difficult to accept that we can comprehend how to send a probe to Pluto and get almost airplane-level views of the surface, but we can't comprehend a character cooked up by Bronze Age goatherds to explain the world as they saw it.
I'm in no way defending the disgustingly immoral God character that Bronze Age goatherders created. The Biblical God is not incomprehensible, but it is quite indefensible. Especially as a supposed moral authority.

It is hardly a valid excuse to claim that an self-contradictory immoral God can be justified by claiming that it's simply beyond our ability to comprehend. That's not a valid apology for an ignorant immoral God who does extremely unintelligent things. But I do realize that apologists for these indefensible religions do try to make that argument. But that's not a valid argument for a God that is basically immoral and unintelligent like the Biblical God.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply