What Is An Agnostic Atheist?

[Mr.Cat]

There are chiefly two dimensions I notice when regarding theism: knowledge and belief.

In regards to belief, atheism ranges from strong (claiming there is no divinity), weak (lack of a belief), and de facto (indifference). In regards to knowledge, agnosticism ranges from strong (claiming it is impossible to know divinity), de facto (indifference), and weak (admitting the possibility to know). Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

While argumentative, I have been told that Catholicism could classify as a weak theistic agnosticism, since it claims the possibility to know, but never clearly or extensively defines the "[i]how[/i]" or "[i]what[/i]" to know.

An objection brought up by christian apologists is that either one lives with consideration of god or not, which I personally consider psychological splitting and a false dichotomy. Since human behavior or attitude is not always consistent or manifest. It needlessly and inappropriately paints the situation either as "[i]yes[/i]" or "[i]no[/i]", in a discussion clarifying subtle distinctions.

I suppose I would compare it to a discussion on speciation of canines on phatmass, where another user said there was no distinction between a wolf and a dog, other than imaginary words invented by humans. While the story of "Balto" would surely be lost on this individual and I fear the subtle distinctions in life escape them, maybe that is how some theists comfort themselves.

[i]Temporarily visiting, thought I could contribute. Hope this helps someone. I have been avoiding Phatmass recently, I apologize if anyone misses me or deplores my presence.[/i]

Edited July 6, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[stevil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309742271' post='2262837']
As for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism"]ignosticism[/url]:
[/quote]
This ignosticism this is very true. I've never read a clear description of what a god is. A description that all gods could be judged against when trying to ascertain whether the creature is a god or not. A description that is devoid of a personality but essential to distinguishing the type rather than the individual.

We had a thread on the HAF once to try and describe a god, but we didn't suceed.
Some people thought it had to be the creator of the universe, but that only describes a past action rather than the creature itself.
I suggested that it had to have dominion over the Universe without necessarily having the burdon of creation. But again this is action oriented rather than type.
It is hard to describe type when it claims to have no material substance and hence no form, no constraints and no boundaries.

It actually seems to me that with regards to god we work backwards. We have the entity and simply call it god, so it defines what god means rather that the term god defining how we can recognise a god when we meet one. So really it seems to be in relation to which entity you are talking about. If YHWH then god because YHWH defines god, or if Zeus then god becaus Zeus defines god etc.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309942779' post='2263543']
This ignosticism this is very true. I've never read a clear description of what a god is. A description that all gods could be judged against when trying to ascertain whether the creature is a god or not. A description that is devoid of a personality but essential to distinguishing the type rather than the individual.

We had a thread on the HAF once to try and describe a god, but we didn't suceed.
Some people thought it had to be the creator of the universe, but that only describes a past action rather than the creature itself.
I suggested that it had to have dominion over the Universe without necessarily having the burdon of creation. But again this is action oriented rather than type.
It is hard to describe type when it claims to have no material substance and hence no form, no constraints and no boundaries.

It actually seems to me that with regards to god we work backwards. We have the entity and simply call it god, so it defines what god means rather that the term god defining how we can recognise a god when we meet one. So really it seems to be in relation to which entity you are talking about. If YHWH then god because YHWH defines god, or if Zeus then god becaus Zeus defines god etc.[/quote]

Ironically there's no clear meaningful sentence that would objectively describe what a god is and how it would be recognised without a shadow of doubt if we were to see it, other that some predefined characteristics that are attributed to something who some think is worthy of worship and at the same times satisfies intellectual and existential questions. God being the first cause is an example of this...another would be the cause for our consciousness. However I see these as god of the gaps arguments and not anything really real.

To me it also looks like the god concept switches to encompass many of these ideas going from existential to natural, it's like a "theory of everything", though one that's taken on faith because there's no evidence to support what can't even be adequately defined. Pure philosophy and you either accept it on its merits or you don't based on the lack of merits. The uncaused cause for instance: "god" [i]would have to be[/i] the non absurd conclusion to an otherwise absurd infinite regress, maybe because the cause for our existence couldn't be definition be absurd, but that doesn't really add any more insight into what "god" would have to be, other than just an uncaused cause. It's sort of meaningless and I don't see why an uncaused cause should be called "god" or have all the other characteristics attributed to it. I'm sure the theists here don't base how they see god on just that alone, but the same can be said for other ideas such as the soul, for instance. I think that believing in these things is impossible without faith because intellectually they just don't hold together. That's why I'm intrigued when people say that they [i]know[/i] that god exists.

The only "god" concept that I would agree on is "god" is the creative powers of the universe, because I have a special liking for pantheism, but I would see those creative powers (natural forces which allow complexity to evolve) as devoid of personality or conscious and capable intelligence, and that's where I part ways with theists who it seems have a similar view on that aspect (though the god concept is more complex for them and hold many more hypotheses). I wouldn't call it "god" though, because it's a loaded word, for clarity's sake. I [i]know[/i] that creative forces exist, because otherwise I wouldn't.

Edited July 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx