Are babies agnostic? or atheistic?
Offline By no means and I saying that people who oppose this are wrong, but to me it seems that saying that one cannot be completely agnostic appears too absolute (Christianity deals with aboslutes, I do not believe in absolutes). I also acknowledge that in order for one to be completely agnostic, they would have to be 50% sure, and 50% un-sure, which is extreeeeeeeeemely un-probable, but if you honestly have no belief in god as well as no disbelief in God, I can think of no reason to label yourself as anything to do with an atheist. On the other hand, if you think you are uncertain, but lean towards faith of lack there of, that is when I believe you should claim yourself to be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. And example I can think of (Yes Greg, lol) is babies. I am not currently sure where my oppinion stands on this matter currently, but some would say (like my friend Greg did in school a few days ago) that babies are atheists because they do not believe. This does make sense, but given that babies might not be able to percieve the concept of a God might change that. It seems to me that if you are knit-picking, and want to answer the question with an absolute, you would say that babies are atheists, but if one needs to be able to percieve something in order to declare belief in or against it, (which is deffinately determined by oppinion, in my oppinion :)) then babies cannot be theists or atheists, but maybe agnostic? I am not sure, just thinking about it.
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot]Actually I find the whole discussion about defining 'athiest' or 'agnostic' to be a giant semantic game. Tell me, what is the real difference between 'disbelief in god(s)' and 'belief in no god(s)?' Even if such a distinction is possible(I'm not convinced it is), in the end, is it really going to make any difference?
You're right about one thing, though. It does help pass the time. [/quote]
This is why such distinctions are necessary. That's not even what agnostic means. agnosticism deals with knowledge, and is applicable both to atheism and theism.
I wasnt trying to define agnostic at all in my post. Rather, I'v heard a lot of athiests(even in this thread) say that 'athiesim' isnt 'beleif in no-god(s)' but rather 'disbelief in god(s)'. This thread has helped clear it up some. But I still think hte difference is largely superfical.
One is a positive belef and one is a negative belef... it requires diffrent arguments to argue against them... (some could be the same... but atheists can argue among themselves too)
There is no difference from your perspective, as a theist. But for me, it's the difference between actively denying the existence of either specific Gods or a generic god, or simply not having been exposed to the idea or having no opinion
As for your statement, it would not even be disbelief, but unbelief.
People use these three wrongly often, dis, un, and mis. In this case, it is 'un'.
I can't believe its not God!
Yes this new product has the ethics of God but has all of the violence and doctrine removed... now you, too can believe in something that does not have any intrinsic violence!
But, I just can't believe its not God!
Well, believe it! A list of flavors of [i]I can't believe its not God![/i] includes Secular Humanism, Some forms of Buddhism, Nihilism, Objectivism, Some forms of Agnosticism, Weak And strong Atheism, and (our newest flavor) Leprechaunism!
Our Pick of the week - Leprechaunism... for a free trial of this new flavor of "I can't believe its not God" see your local Leprechaunist and make sure to bring your lucky charms!
by definition there both.
they have know knowlege of a god and they dont have any belife in them
Good point, However that would be weak atheism weak agnosticism - neither are the general types (at least when people think of an atheist or an agnostic)
exactly. I just oppose people seeing agnosticism as some 'middle ground'
Agnosticism is pretty much the only logical choice. Unless you have one for:
I am not going to be the most arrogant MF in the world and say I know something no one else could know, but I can assure you organized religion is complete crap.
Cause I think that works.
obviously between gnosticism and agnosticism, agnosticism is the logical choice (you cannot know that god does not exist and unless you are a prophet you cannot know that he does)
Between strong and weak agnosticim weak seems to be the more logical choice (it is possiable to know if god did appear)
The choice is not agnostic or atheist it is agnostic atheist or agnostic theist
In this way the only agnosicism that adds any meaning to atheism or theism is the strong agnosticism.
Theism and atheism deal with belief, agnostism and gnosticism deal with knowledge - agnosticim is the only logical choice, yes
however because atheism and theism deal with belief, that is where the real choice is made, i think that atheism is more logical - theists obviously don't
well, I agree entirely. agnosticism is the logical choice, but over gnosticism, not theism/atheism. theism and atheism deal with belief, not knowledge, and thus there is no claim of 'knowing'. Some people confuse believing with knowing(generally faith-Christians)
Exactly, the only form of agnosticism/gnosticism that deals with belief is the strong agnosticism, in which you believe that it is impossible to know (whether there is a god)
Which is a belief about knowledge