Agnosticism is an epistomologic stance on God. Knowledge and belief are just degrees of the same thing. Why are so many young people regurgitating the lie created by a few theists regarding belief?
Why can't doubt (agnosticism, or the absence of certainty) be a belief? If I am agnostic. Just agnostic, I give atheists and thrusts the equal possibility of being correct, I am unbiased, I am just agnostic, the only thing I know is that nobody knows and that is my belief.
I do not know if there is jelly in my kitchen. It may be or not, but I am at the shop and I can't check. How do you call me? If I hope there is or if I think there is not this does not change the fact that I know that I do not know.
hi laci my name's tammy I've seen on you tube before your recent short films The atheism\agnosticism relationship I remember you saying there were only 3 belief systems well I'm here to prove to you it's not true have you ever heard of ANIMISM? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't since it's been covered for more than 30,000 years I guess what I want to ask you is Would you want to learn ANIMISM? Please post a comment back or respond with a 'short film' thanks
While this is all true, I have to say something - under that interpretation of Agnosticism and Gnosticism, they are COMPLETELY USELESS. Nobody can know for certain. Plain and simple, and someone who claims to either doesn't understand the axiom of "if you know it, you can show it", or is delusional.
Well i can't find myself in any of your categories, because i don't freakin know if there's a god or not, the least i can do is making assumptions about it.So i'm an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist by your standards. And FYI, if you're a gnostic, which mean you know about it, you are lying to yourself.
@woovy "Well i can't find myself in any of your categories, because i don't freakin know if there's a god or not" Then you fit the category if agnosticism.
"So i'm an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist by your standards." No, that's impossible you cannot both believe a god exists and not believe at the same time.
also sorry for the boob comment, i'm so glad you made the comment that atheism is the non-belief..i've received so much shit claiming atheism is a non-belief...lol
@KristofskiKabuki It's perfectly sound, albeit a bit intellectually lazy. Not saying you are intellectually lazy in all aspects of life, just on your stance on this issue. Scientists would get nowhere if they held this type of "it's impossible to know" mentality.
@iz2sicc One of the reasons it's impossible to know is that first you'd have to decide which definition of "god" you were using. Unfortunately there are almost as many definitions of that word as there are people using it.
@KristofskiKabuki That's not difficult at all. Just a general definition will do... an intelligent supernatural being. You mean there are almost as many variations of these deities as the people worshiping them. Even if something seems impossible, you should treat it as a possibility. That is the scientific way of thinking. That is how we gain more knowledge about this Universe. Ask someone 100 years ago if an iPhone was possible and they'll likely tell you it's impossible. Think about it.
@iz2sicc There are many (including me) who would object that any notion of "god" would be supernatural, as they see deity as an inherant part of nature. As for "Even if something seems impossible, you should treat it as a possibility", this is exactly what most scientists *don't* do - if something goes against what they believe to be true they insist the data must be wrong (this has happened many times in the history of science).
@KristofskiKabuki Supernatural by definition means it's not a part of nature. Your claim that scientists don't treat everything as a possibility is patently false. If you can disprove a scientific theory, you will instantly become famous and will most likely win a Nobel Prize to top it off. Science is based on evidence. If you go against scientific theories with NO or BAD evidence, then of course the scientific community will insist that you are wrong.
@iz2sicc As I said, there are examples of scientists' work being rejected because it was seen to be impossible, but was later proved to be true. Examples include early work in chaos theory and the big bang (in fact the name "big bang" was devised by a believer in the stable universe theory as a derogitary term). Theoretically this shouldn't happen, but scientists are people and people are not rational.
@KristofskiKabuki Oh, you mean the radio host who coined that term? Who later claimed it was only meant as a stark contrast to the term "steady state"? So what's the accepted theory right now? Is it not the big bang theory? Did science not correct itself? Mind you, we are talking about the 1960's here. Opposition only lasts until you provide substantial evidence. Substantial evidence was obviously found as it's the accepted theory now.
@iz2sicc Science did, but there are scientists who never accepted the big bang theory even after it had become generally accepted because they thought it couldn't be true. I can't remember his name, but there was a russian scientist who discovered strange self organising behaviour of chemicals he was working on, did a full study, then couldn't get it published because everyone said his data must be wrong and it was impossible. The work he was doing became the foundation of chaos theory.
@KristofskiKabuki No, a radio host coined that term. You need to research that yourself for confirmation. If the scientist you speak of couldn't get his work published, then it's probably because he did not have sufficient evidence to support his theory. Again, big bang is widely accepted. That does not mean EVERY scientist accepts it. There are alternative theories. BB is just the most viable... for now.
@KristofskiKabuki So what's your point? There will always be opposition. If a scientist cannot provide enough evidence for their theory, then of course it's going to face majority opposition. Do you think it's that easy to turn a hypothesis into a theory? You said it yourself, BB theory had a lot of opposition. It's accepted now due to practically insurmountable amount of evidence.
@iz2sicc You said "Your claim that scientists don't treat everything as a possibility is patently false" and I'm showing it isn't. Scientists are still people, and people are often irrational.
@KristofskiKabuki No, you did not show it. You gave examples of hypotheses that couldn't provide enough evidence to become theory. That does not prove that scientists hold a belief that something is absolutely not falsifiable. Even if they accept evolution as a fact, they still say there is a possibility that it is false. Someone just has to prove it with evidence that either breaks the theory down or evidence for an alternative, better theory.
@KristofskiKabuki I agree that scientists are still people. No argument there. They in fact can be irrational. The fact that roughly 7% of scientists believe in a personal God proves this.
@iz2sicc And surely, if there were to be a god of some kind, they would in fact *be* part of nature? (and for many people, nature is in fact the phyiscal manifestation of god)
@KristofskiKabuki The religious people I speak to see nature as EVIDENCE of God. They speak spiritually about God being in everything. They argue that God is outside of the realm of nature. She is not constricted to the laws of our Universe. This is why she can supposedly magically create things like time and space and needs no creator of her own.
im agnostic and think ateists a major douches agnostic is yhe best religion becaus can u prov god excists yea but wut about the other religions they can prove it to(except scinetology and morman) so there
Brava! Finally, a young person who understands words. Thank you. I am adding this video to my favorites. I dislike the term weak being included in defining the term is that implies a stronger position elsewhere in the spectrum, however. Also you left out "classic agnostic" of which I am myself an example. Otherwise, this was a well written and argued presentation. Congratulations on having a working mind. These days on You Tube that is a rare thing.
Formal logic can not disprove the existence of any omnipotent being. If we take omnipotent(able to do anything) in the broadest sense then that being could totally defy logic in every conceivable and non conceivable way. Statistically, however, there is absolutely zero evidence for any omnipotent deity that does anything discernible to us.
@123rushabc Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.
@123rushabc Actually they are important distinctions. Each refers to a particular position on a spectrum of thought. Labels are fraught with misunderstanding, however. People often do not understand the words they use, or use them out of context. Most often it is shear ignorance, other times it is stupidity on the part of the person speaking. Sometimes it is deliberate, and manipulative. But it is more than semantics, however. These terms are active in the English lexicon, and therefore real.
Agnosticism is a belief which claims the question about the existence of supreme being(s) is simply off limit, beyond human capability
There is an unavoidable logical fallacy by trying to define about something clearly stated it is beyond human, therefore beyond your logic, law of physics, whatsoever
@harusame80 The word "belief" is not something that is used in describing an agnostic, at least in a classic sense of the term. Agnostics don't generally "believe" but see, observe, note, and speculate, but they do not "believe," which is to say extend knowledge beyond what may be supported by evidence. They do not place values where there are no values to be known.
@chopin65 it depends on how you define the word "belief" or "knowledge"
i know that the truth value about the existence of god(s) is certainly unknown, or i believe that the truth value of the existence of god(s) is unknown
There is also no evidence that the existence of god(s) is unknowable, since it could be also knowable.
You need to narrow your parameters. If you insist, "belief" is in the context, suggests confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. Again, context is important in refuting your second objection: at the present time we fix on a system of knowledge that we can demonstrate with evidence or true values that are tested. You are giving opposing values that are untested and based in undetermined values.
@steverock85 "Is not *having* believe the same as not believing?" Yes, both mean a lack of belief, not the belief that god(s) do not exist. Could you provide a source by the way, because this is what the on-line Oxford Dictionary states:
Has the meaning changed? Does it mean anything else than it should?
But there is still a common ground for both of us.
Non-theist:"not having or involving a belief in a god or gods. "-oxford dictionaries
There is an “or” statement. We have both “having” or “involving”. I can use the meaning of "not involving" a belief in a god or gods. Therefore I am non-theist in the meaning that I do not take a stand in religious debate. You use the first.
So, whilst the categories that he gives exist, he ommits at least four other strands or understandings of agnosticism. So at least 6 to choose from in total so far.
I say this tentatively, because I am still trying to understand. To me agnosticism was simple a few days ago...
I think that I would exist somewhere between weak and strong agnosticism....
Good luck with that. I just think thomaseshuis is just reading to much into this. If you read what Thomas Henry Huxley had to say, the inventor of Agnosticism, then he wanted the word to be stand by itself.
I respect that and his definition fits me. If others think I have to be (A)theist, then I just say I am non-theist. This is a word from Oxford English Dictionary. It is just as valid as atheist and theist are.
@steverock85 "Good luck with that. I just think thomaseshuis is just reading to much into this" I apologise if is I seem a bit harsh or anything. It's just that I'm tired of strong agnostics trying to misdefine atheism as a positive belief in 'no god(s) exist' and acting like they are somehow superior to atheists and theists.
I see that I mistook you for one, again my apologies.
@steverock85 "If you read what Thomas Henry Huxley had to say, the inventor of Agnosticism" Sorry but that's not true, he brought the word into the English language, it existed long before that in the Greek language as a position on (philosophical) knowledge.
Besides, his definition of agnosticism does not exclude someone from being an atheist or theist, by their proper definitions.
"Ten years before he coined the word "Agnostic" to label his attitute towards the unproved, whether likely or unlikely, in contradistinction to the Gnostics, who professed to "know" form within apart from external proof, Huxley described the Agnostic position he had already reached -- the position of suspending judgment where actual proof is not possible; the attitude of mind which regards the words "I believe" as a momentous assertion, not to be uttered on incomplete grounds."
@steverock85 "By non-theist, I mean like it is discriped in The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) defined as "A person who is not a theist"" Again, look up the definition of atheism on the Oxford dictionary and explain to me how that is in conflict with non-theist. How are they different?
You do not need to defend your opinion to me. This was a quote form the book. I do not care what or how you think. If I do not understand, then it is not my role to tell how you feel. Likewise, I would like if you would do the same.
I do not make any claims that I know any better that you. I only claim that I am agnostic-non-theist. By non-theist, I mean like it is discriped in The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) defined as "A person who is not a theist"
My take on god is undefined and therefore agnostic omiting any (a)theist claim is legal.
@steverock85 "If others think I have to be (A)theist, then I just say I am non-theist. This is a word from Oxford English Dictionary. It is just as valid as atheist and theist are. " I can respect that. But do me a favor and compare it to the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism and see if they are conflicting in any way.
I think you'll find they are not. Don't be afraid of atheism, because conservative theists misrepresent it.
@ummmerrrrummm "So, whilst the categories that he gives exist, he ommits at least four other strands" No, only one. "So at least 6 to choose from in total so far." No, 3, Ignosticism does not answer the question of belief. Pragmatism is philosophical tradition, not a belief or stance on god. Strong and weak are adjectives which are meaningless with out specifying what you're strong or weak about. Agnosticism still is not an answer to the question of belief.
Freethinker is good, by the way, and I think is appropriate for anyone who tries to think rationally or seek some truth.
thomaseshuis argues that you can only be atheist agnostic or theist agnostic. This moves away from the colloquial definition that I was using and into technicality. I think that he is correct here, however he omits the significant point that other categories exist. Here they are... either: 'Atheistic', 'Theistic', 'Pragmatic', 'Ignostic', 'Strong', 'Weak' - Agnosticism.
@ummmerrrrummm "thomaseshuis argues that you can only be atheist agnostic or theist agnostic. This moves away from the colloquial definition that I was using and into technicality."
No, it clarifies someone's position. Stating that your an agnostic does not tell us anything about your beliefs in god(s), or lack thereof.
"Ignostic" If you it bothers you/interests you or not, you still either believe or you don't.
"Pragmatic" Not a position on god(s), a philosophical tradition.
@steverock85 "Weak atheist often claim there is no proof, but I can add the infinity and therefore a god must exsist, not just one but all you can think of. "
What is 'the infinity' and how exactly is it proof of the existence of a 'god'.
If this world is made with infinity set of objects and each object can be broken down to continues and discontinues parts which are either convergent or divergent for each variable that makes up the object, then there exist at least one object that is your falls into your definition of god.
That includes definition of all knowing god that rules over a supset of other objects that might or might not be aware of his existance.
@steverock85 "If this world is made with infinity set of objects" Hypotheticals do not prove the existence of a god, unless you can prove that hypothetical itself is true.
@steverock85 "and each object can be broken down to continues and discontinues parts which are either convergent or divergent for each variable that makes up the object, then there exist at least one object that is your falls into your definition of god."
So what you are talking about is an element that exists in everything that exists in reality? True that might very well exist, but that's not what the average person is talking about when they discussing the existence of god(s).
@steverock85 "That includes definition of all knowing god that rules over a supset of other objects that might or might not be aware of his existance. " No, an all-knowing god is not the same as original element.
"Then what about weak atheist? Does this definition fall under their catacory? Do they not believe in any gods? If not, why not?" They don't, because no-one has presented any verifiable evidence. They do not, however, believe that no god(s) exist.
What is infinity? I only know it has phenomenal to go forever. Is the world is made of infinity of sets of objects or not, I do not know. How do I define god? Is there only one god? Is god a preson. I define god as unknown or unknowable, do you not?
What do you think of schrodinger cat? Is it alive or is it dead?
@ummmerrrrummm As I remember, the Oxford English Dictionary (at least the edition I had when I was at school), defines agnosticism as a belief that we cannot know whether there is or isn't a god.
What I find funny, is when I identify to both theists and atheists as agnostic, they seem to think I'm sitting on the fence... as though agnosticism is a waypoint between atheism and theism.
To me, saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest answers a person can give to a question.
@andyfromsheldon Yeah... I think it is too. (error - I meant polytheists below)
People want to talk about definitions like here in this video... I could just as well argue that Richard Dawkins should technically be called an agnostic rather than an atheist because very technically he still allows for a small sliver of possibility of there being a god (he is 97% sure - ish), but we would all accept that he is an atheist right?
For me this definition argument comes down to word play.
@andyfromsheldon "To me, saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest answers a person can give to a question." Except it is not a valid anwser to the question; "Do you believe in any god(s)?".
To the question you pose, 'Do you believe in any god(s)?', I would answer no. However, it would not then follow that I believe there are no gods. To the question 'Do you believe there are no god(s)?' I would also answer no...
So where does that leave me? It leaves me rejecting theism and rejecting atheism. Call it something else if you don't like agnosticism... It becomes hair splitting word play when you get technical.
@ummmerrrrummm "To the question you pose, 'Do you believe in any god(s)?', I would answer no. " Which would make you not-a-theist or atheist for short.
"However, it would not then follow that I believe there are no gods" And that's not what atheism is either.
Only gnostic atheists believe that.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s), not the believe that there are none.
@ummmerrrrummm "'Do you believe there are no god(s)?' I would also answer no..." So would I, but I also don't believe in one, so I am still an atheist, agnostic atheist, because I do not know personally or otherwise that there are no god(s).
"It leaves me rejecting theism and rejecting atheism." Not believing there are no god(s) is not rejecting atheism, it is rejecting gnostic atheism.
@ummmerrrrummm "It becomes hair splitting word play when you get technical." No it's just a matter of understanding the definition of certain words. And the definition of atheism is, from the Oxford Dictionary:
atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin:
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
@thomaseshuis I am aware of the subtle differences and definitions in the terminology.
I could counter by being equally technical with those who are theists. I could say that all theists are atheists, since they undoubtedly all deny the existence of Loki the Norse shape changing God. Technically everyone in the world is likely to be an atheist.
@ummmerrrrummm "I could counter by being equally technical with those who are theists. I could say that all theists are atheists, since they undoubtedly all deny the existence of Loki the Norse shape changing God."
They're not, they are theists, as they believe in a god. They can say they are atheist under specific circumstances but in general, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god(s).
@thomaseshuis There are different understandings and interpretations of the terms from an array of different people.
Some will say that 'disbelief' as you define it represents active disbelief in God and will attribute this to all atheists. This would not then fit the parameters of my world view. Others will say that atheism is simply the lack of belief.
If atheism is the lack of belief, then in terms of belief you have none. This means that a label of belief is redundant and... cont...
@ummmerrrrummm "There are different understandings and interpretations of the terms from an array of different people." Yet, the dictionary is very clear, as is the etymology of the word.
And if you really want to commit the argument from popularity fallacy; the majority of atheists use the Oxford definition.
"Some will say that 'disbelief' as you define it" Don't try to twist things. It is the dictionary definition, not some definition I made up.
@ummmerrrrummm "represents active disbelief in God" Disbelief cannot be active or inactive, it is the absence of something: belief. That's like saying, I am actively not thinking.
"This would not then fit the parameters of my world view." It would not, as the definition of disbelief, wheter active or otherwise is still the absence of lack of belief. Not a positive belief.
@thomaseshuis Again I think you're splitting hairs here. Perhaps the word active was not perfectly chosen.
I say active disbelief and you have interpreted it literally. I meant there is a difference between lack of belief and belief that there is no God(s). This is the difference. The latter is something inclusive in the definition of atheism, which is not inclusive in my world view. This inclusion illustrates an incompatability with my world view.
@ummmerrrrummm "Again I think you're splitting hairs here." No, knowing the proper definition of words is not hair-splitting it is clarifying the issue.
"I meant there is a difference between lack of belief and belief that there is no God(s). " There is, the first is atheism in general, the second is gnostic or strong atheism.
@thomaseshuis If you're going to write at length, why not do it in a pm and I will respond... It is easier and more academic then filtering through 8 or 9 posts....
@ummmerrrrummm "This is the difference." Never denied that.
"The latter is something inclusive in the definition of atheism" No, it's not. Gnostic atheists are atheist, but the majority of atheists are actually agnostic.
Again, the definition is lack of belief, not a belief there are no god(s).
"This inclusion illustrates an incompatability with my world view." Except it isn't , as being an atheist does not mean you believe there are no god(s).
@ummmerrrrummm "If atheism is the lack of belief, then in terms of belief you have none. This means that a label of belief is redundant" It is not as atheism defines what I don't believe in: god(s), if I called myself an unbeliever, many would ask what exactly I am not believing in.
It is a useful name for people who do not belief in any god(s).
@thomaseshuis cont... and talking in terms of belief is pointless. Therefore the only valuable term or description would be from a perspective of knowledge. So you are either gnostic or agnostic.
In terms of scientific understanding, we tend to talk in terms of knowledge and what is not knowledge. Scientifically, I might say that to make judgements of belief without empirical evidence is faith. There's nothing wrong with this, but perhaps I would prefer to defer belief and not take a label.
@ummmerrrrummm "Therefore the only valuable term or description would be from a perspective of knowledge. So you are either gnostic or agnostic." If all people run on pure logic, then this would be true. Sadly a lot of people admit they do not have any knowledge or evidence for the existence of their god, but they still believe in him/her/it/them.
@ummmerrrrummm It does not matter that you and I know it is illogical to believe in god(s) without knowledge, as long as there are people that do, they will have a name: theist and those that don't will be the opposite: atheists.
"In terms of scientific understanding, we tend to talk in terms of knowledge and what is not knowledge." Agreed, but even scientists study religion and it's causes, whereby the terms theists and atheists are indeed useful.
@ummmerrrrummm "Scientifically, I might say that to make judgements of belief without empirical evidence is faith. " Not believing in any god(s) is not making a judgement, it is withholding judgement, because there is no empirical evidence for their existence (at least that we know of). Only when you start believing that they either do or do not exist, do you make a judgement.
@ummmerrrrummm "but perhaps I would prefer to defer belief and not take a label." Irrelevant, whether you like it or not, certain labels will still apply to you.
@thomaseshuis Well you may call me an atheist if it pleases you. That's a lot of points and it's difficult to reply properly in disjointed 500 ch replies...
It is not irrelevant if someone asks me who I am. I will still say agnostic until I change my mind. I am not closed off about this.
I could pull out a dictionary definition of agnosticism and it might very well match all the points you make about weak atheism. I could argue with the same conviction that technically you should be agnostic
@ummmerrrrummm "Well you may call me an atheist if it pleases you" Again, it's not just what I call you, or what you call yourself, you are an atheist, whether you call yourself one or not. The definition applies to you.
"it's difficult to reply properly in disjointed 500 ch replies" I managed to do it, should not be to hard for you to respond.
"I will still say agnostic" Which is your right, but it won't change what you are.
@thomaseshuis well I can respond on a pm if u wish... I'm not hiding.... but 500 ch replies are awkward to deal with when i have to respond to 7 or 8 from u....
@ummmerrrrummm "I could argue with the same conviction that technically you should be agnostic"
I have already stated, several times, that I am an agnostic atheist.
Again, they are not two exclusive positions.
"I could pull out a dictionary definition of agnosticism and it might very well match all the points you make about weak atheism." No scientific based dictionary I know of has such a definition.
@thomaseshuis You may call me an atheist since you think my beliefs match atheism very closely.
I have just checked the dictionary definition of agnostic and it seems to me that weak atheism almost perfectly matches the definition of agnostic. So in return for you calling me an atheist I will call you an agnostic, since we are talking definitions and semantics.
@steverock85 Well see, here you illustrate my point again. You have a different opinion on the terminology here.
I was not the one who used the phrase weak atheism first. I was reciting what thomaseshuis said. I call myself an agnostic at the moment, because I do not know, do not claim to nor have a belief either way. I am happy for others to be atheist if they wish. However, thomaseshuis is arguing that I cannot be agnostic without the aditional label atheist.
Yeah sorry about that. I thought that you were giving in to their claims that you should not call yourself agnostic which is perfectly fine.
I just don't even really get where this "weak atheist" comes from? When was this made up, and how on earth did it end up all the up to be a definition?
@steverock85 Hi. See I'm kind of interested to know now. There are many interpretations of these terms including colloquial, technically correct, loose or just wrong.
I consider myself an agnostic and in the colloquial usage of the term, I think I fit fine and am happy with the meaning. Colloquially I would not call myself an atheist. However, technical definitions might reveal something else, which is what I'm looking at...
It would be awesome if you let me know if you find something. Having unambiguous term for my self would be nice. I have considered just "freethinker", but I worry I would have to call myself freethinker-(a)theist as the freethinker does not consider any believe like (a)theist do. I also looked up on non-theist-agnostic. defined as "A person who is not a theist" + thinks the answer is is unknown or unknowable.
@steverock85 thomaseshuis and I seem to agree that agnosticism & gnosticism refer to knowledge. The video says that too and I think we all agree there.
However, thomaseshuis sets up a dichotemy where you can only be an atheist or a theist with regards to belief. This is definately false, because even if you can't be an agnostic (which I think you can) you can be a deist, which is different still and makes at least a third option.
@ummmerrrrummm "However, thomaseshuis sets up a dichotemy where you can only be an atheist or a theist with regards to belief. This is definately false, because even if you can't be an agnostic (which I think you can) you can be a deist, which is different still and makes at least a third option. " I will admit I am wrong in forgetting deism.
@ummmerrrrummm That still does not mean that agnosticism answers the question of "What do you believe?". True the choices are theism, deism and atheism, agnosticism still is not one of them though.
If you tell me your an agnostic, that does not tell me if you do or do not believe in god(s), since I've met agnostic theists as well.
@ummmerrrrummm "I was not the one who used the phrase weak atheism first. I was reciting what thomaseshuis said." I did not mention weak atheism, only agnostic atheism.
"However, thomaseshuis is arguing that I cannot be agnostic without the aditional label atheist. " Which is true because those two terms deal with different questions regarding god(s).
This person believes = 1 (true, this person does believe)
This person believes = 0 (false, this person does not believe)
This person believes = undefined (there is no truth value)
If you truly think the answer is unknown or unknowable then you can not believe or not "not believe" in god/s. To do so, would be assigning truth value.
Thomas Henry Huxley did not consider himself to be atheist or theist.
"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. "
There you go. Just go to google scholar -> "thomas henry huxley: a character sketch" then look up page 33.
@steverock85 "I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. "" Then he had a flawed understanding of what atheism actually is.
He was wrong about atheism, since he did not held a belief in any god(s), he was by definition an atheist, whether he called himself one or not.
@ummmerrrrummm "I have just checked the dictionary definition of agnostic and it seems to me that weak atheism almost perfectly matches the definition of agnostic" Which dictionary?
"I will call you an agnostic, since we are talking definitions and semantics." Again, I've already said I am an agnostic atheist.
@angeltears87 And, you are deriving this from.... I don't know, a few decades of your mortal life on this tiny speck of a planet earth? How do you know human rules apply to god as well? Have you talked to him? Oh, are you my messiah? Grow up, we don't even know how many different animals are on this tiny rock. What makes you think you know everything about everything, that you know something like god doesn't exist for sure?
The rules of logic are not human laws. They are the laws of the universe.
For example an apple is always an apple and it is never not an apple.
I never claimed to know every about everything, I certainly never would either.
I never said that I know for sure that god doesn't exist. Maybe one does, or many, it just isn't the christian one. As it is logically impossible for a being to be all powerful.
@HENRYPATRICK1736 "Nobody knows if there is or isn't a god. Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest." True, that's why she calls herself an agnostic atheist.
She does not know of their existence and therefore does not believe in any god(s).
What is to you Gnosis/Knowledge? To main Gnostics it's probable an intuitive knowledge. But you can understand knowledge under many ways ... Under a Philosophical Empiricism, or under Scientific Empiricism or even under Rational knowledge ... i mean the possibilities are endless. But all are Gnosis/Knowledge and so is correct to use the term even if it doesn't comply with regular Gnosticism 'cause Gnosticism derive from Knowledge and not "a type" of knowledge.
@tacv The only people using gnosticism that way are new atheist types, and they're doing it to specifically muddle the meaning of agnosticism. There is literally no other reason for doing it. And no one else is going to use the word that way because it would only cause confusion while adding nothing to any conversation.
As someone that believes in increasing knowledge, I object to the efforts of the intellectually retarded to restrict it.
@ehmunro "The only people using gnosticism that way are new atheist types" Wrong, many theists use it, as do many authors and scientists.
"they're doing it to specifically muddle the meaning of agnosticism. There is literally no other reason for doing it." There is, to explain that you do not claim to know whether god exist, but you still do or don't believe in him/them.
@ehmunro "And no one else is going to use the word that way because it would only cause confusion while adding nothing to any conversation." As I said, many people do use it and it does add something to the conversation: If you think it is possible to proof god(s) existence, whether right now or in the future.
Really, just because you find it confusing, does not mean it is.
@ehmunro "As someone that believes in increasing knowledge, I object to the efforts of the intellectually retarded to restrict it. " Yet you object to the clarification of people's views and (lack of) knowledge on this topic. You're contradicting yourself.
Gnosticism is to many the same as heresy, but Gnosticism is also a group of beliefs that are based on syncretism. Also you can be a Gnostic and believe in something different than other Gnostic, since Gnosticism is a broad term to a group of beliefs and not an institution of ideas or religion. What i mean is that the term is broad and can be used under different contexts. Using it under a context of Gnosis/knowledge is correct even though the kind of Gnosis can differ from main Gnosticism groups
You understand that gnosticism doesn't actually mean what you claim it does, right? It refers to a specific set of esoteric religions. That's how the word entered the English language and that's how everyone outside the maleducated (sic) gnu atheist community uses the word to this day. "Gnostic atheism" would be an oxymoron,
@ehmunro 'That's how the word entered the English language ' True, but the origin of the word is Greek and is not restricted to the existence of god(s). Gnostic atheism is not an oxymoron as not all atheists claim to know or even believe that no god(s) exist, but some do.
@thomaseshuis A "gnostic atheist" would be an atheist that believed in multiple gods. It would indeed be an oxymoron. The Greek word is "gnostikos" and an adjective (and it doesn't mean "knowledge" it leans "learned"). Gnosticism was a transliteration by Henry More in reference to the mystery religions of Asia Minor. And it's been used that way ever since. See Meyer's "Nag Hammadi Scriptures" or Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels" for contemporary references. You gnus aren't stealing it
@thomaseshuis An atheist claiming to be a "gnostic atheist" is actually an idiot. This is one of my IQ tests, really, if you think that gnostic and agnostic are antonyms, you're stupid. And no amount of calling yourself "a bright" will change that. At the end of the day the word agnostic is still a reference to a philosophy, which goes beyond mere "knowledge of God" and Gnostic, in English, means, and has always meant, an adherent to a specific family of esoteric religions.
@ehmunro 'An atheist claiming to be a "gnostic atheist" is actually an idiot. This is one of my IQ tests, really, if you think that gnostic and agnostic are antonyms, you're stupid.' Your lack of knowledge on the fact that that gnosticism is not limited to one definition is not my problem. If you need to resort to ad-hominem attacks, I'm done with you.
@thomaseshuis Also, you need to actually learn something about gnosticism before lecturing people on the origin of the word (and I *do* I understand that learning is anathema to new atheism). Henry More, the guy that coined the word in English, derived the term Gnostic from the Greek adjective, gnostikos, not from any other conjugation, *because he was describing a family of religions first mentioned by Irenaeus in the second century* and that was his word for the "heresy".
@angeltears87 Actually the word entered English from the French and dates to the 16th century, and meant pretty much what it means now to everyone outside the new atheist movement. Just as gnostic/gnosticism has an exceptionally clear meaning and is used in that sense until this very day outside a very small subset of atheists who aren't exactly renowned for their intelligence. Even amongst atheists.
@ehmunro "Actually the word entered English from the French and dates to the 16th century, and meant pretty much what it means now to everyone outside the new atheist movement. " False.
From the etymology dictionary:
"atheism 1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness.""
@ehmunro 'Gnosticism was a transliteration by Henry More' I am not talking about >G<nosticism, I am talking about the Greek word gnosis. which meant and still means knowledge.
Agnosticism is an epistomologic stance on God. Knowledge and belief are just degrees of the same thing. Why are so many young people regurgitating the lie created by a few theists regarding belief?
o0face4radio0o 13 hours ago
Laci, you are one amazing young lady! Thank you for this video!
kathyqz 1 day ago
Why can't doubt (agnosticism, or the absence of certainty) be a belief? If I am agnostic. Just agnostic, I give atheists and thrusts the equal possibility of being correct, I am unbiased, I am just agnostic, the only thing I know is that nobody knows and that is my belief.
JaypeeMurphy 4 days ago
Damnit, everyone always ignores Deism ; (
Tartersauce101 6 days ago
@Tartersauce101 I agree.
ratonL 5 days ago in playlist Más videos de gogreen18
With all your respect... you are very pretty :)
Sheik06 6 days ago
I do not know if there is jelly in my kitchen. It may be or not, but I am at the shop and I can't check. How do you call me? If I hope there is or if I think there is not this does not change the fact that I know that I do not know.
kiaroski 1 week ago
I'm an an agnostic-atheist.
MrGaddafikiller 1 week ago
nope. agnostic here. one word
MrMarkLegion 1 week ago
U r hot
buglovesjen 1 week ago
this girl doesnt ever think that some things can be illogical and work. Look at love for example.
TheTender30 2 weeks ago
This girl's moral suck, listen to Penn Jillette if ur an atheist
MejoradaDj 2 weeks ago
hi laci my name's tammy I've seen on you tube before your recent short films The atheism\agnosticism relationship I remember you saying there were only 3 belief systems well I'm here to prove to you it's not true have you ever heard of ANIMISM? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't since it's been covered for more than 30,000 years I guess what I want to ask you is Would you want to learn ANIMISM? Please post a comment back or respond with a 'short film' thanks
ILoveMJ5820 3 weeks ago 2
While this is all true, I have to say something - under that interpretation of Agnosticism and Gnosticism, they are COMPLETELY USELESS. Nobody can know for certain. Plain and simple, and someone who claims to either doesn't understand the axiom of "if you know it, you can show it", or is delusional.
BlodhArget 3 weeks ago
omg i believe you should just take your shirt off.
RumbleTouchDroid 4 weeks ago
Belief is complicated and every changing. It is a gray area. Don't oversimplify it.
philosophermike 4 weeks ago
Good job Mrs Beck. Very nice board.
alqazaha1 1 month ago
Well i can't find myself in any of your categories, because i don't freakin know if there's a god or not, the least i can do is making assumptions about it.So i'm an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist by your standards. And FYI, if you're a gnostic, which mean you know about it, you are lying to yourself.
woovy 1 month ago
@woovy Well cant you just call yourself an agnostic and leave it at that?
Oldcartoons571 3 weeks ago
@woovy "Well i can't find myself in any of your categories, because i don't freakin know if there's a god or not" Then you fit the category if agnosticism.
"So i'm an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist by your standards." No, that's impossible you cannot both believe a god exists and not believe at the same time.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
also sorry for the boob comment, i'm so glad you made the comment that atheism is the non-belief..i've received so much shit claiming atheism is a non-belief...lol
AlexAlln09 1 month ago
0:08.5 boob push up lol
AlexAlln09 1 month ago
Comment removed
AlexAlln09 1 month ago
What if God inside the Machine?
Daremo423 1 month ago
I believe that it's impossible to know if there's a god or not. How's that for a belief system?
KristofskiKabuki 1 month ago 8
@KristofskiKabuki It's perfectly sound, albeit a bit intellectually lazy. Not saying you are intellectually lazy in all aspects of life, just on your stance on this issue. Scientists would get nowhere if they held this type of "it's impossible to know" mentality.
iz2sicc 1 week ago in playlist Atheism / Religion / Philosophy
@iz2sicc One of the reasons it's impossible to know is that first you'd have to decide which definition of "god" you were using. Unfortunately there are almost as many definitions of that word as there are people using it.
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki That's not difficult at all. Just a general definition will do... an intelligent supernatural being. You mean there are almost as many variations of these deities as the people worshiping them. Even if something seems impossible, you should treat it as a possibility. That is the scientific way of thinking. That is how we gain more knowledge about this Universe. Ask someone 100 years ago if an iPhone was possible and they'll likely tell you it's impossible. Think about it.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@iz2sicc There are many (including me) who would object that any notion of "god" would be supernatural, as they see deity as an inherant part of nature. As for "Even if something seems impossible, you should treat it as a possibility", this is exactly what most scientists *don't* do - if something goes against what they believe to be true they insist the data must be wrong (this has happened many times in the history of science).
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki Supernatural by definition means it's not a part of nature. Your claim that scientists don't treat everything as a possibility is patently false. If you can disprove a scientific theory, you will instantly become famous and will most likely win a Nobel Prize to top it off. Science is based on evidence. If you go against scientific theories with NO or BAD evidence, then of course the scientific community will insist that you are wrong.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@iz2sicc As I said, there are examples of scientists' work being rejected because it was seen to be impossible, but was later proved to be true. Examples include early work in chaos theory and the big bang (in fact the name "big bang" was devised by a believer in the stable universe theory as a derogitary term). Theoretically this shouldn't happen, but scientists are people and people are not rational.
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki Oh, you mean the radio host who coined that term? Who later claimed it was only meant as a stark contrast to the term "steady state"? So what's the accepted theory right now? Is it not the big bang theory? Did science not correct itself? Mind you, we are talking about the 1960's here. Opposition only lasts until you provide substantial evidence. Substantial evidence was obviously found as it's the accepted theory now.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@iz2sicc Science did, but there are scientists who never accepted the big bang theory even after it had become generally accepted because they thought it couldn't be true. I can't remember his name, but there was a russian scientist who discovered strange self organising behaviour of chemicals he was working on, did a full study, then couldn't get it published because everyone said his data must be wrong and it was impossible. The work he was doing became the foundation of chaos theory.
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki No, a radio host coined that term. You need to research that yourself for confirmation. If the scientist you speak of couldn't get his work published, then it's probably because he did not have sufficient evidence to support his theory. Again, big bang is widely accepted. That does not mean EVERY scientist accepts it. There are alternative theories. BB is just the most viable... for now.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@iz2sicc I never said they didn't. But there were still scientists who didn't accept it.
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki So what's your point? There will always be opposition. If a scientist cannot provide enough evidence for their theory, then of course it's going to face majority opposition. Do you think it's that easy to turn a hypothesis into a theory? You said it yourself, BB theory had a lot of opposition. It's accepted now due to practically insurmountable amount of evidence.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@iz2sicc You said "Your claim that scientists don't treat everything as a possibility is patently false" and I'm showing it isn't. Scientists are still people, and people are often irrational.
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki No, you did not show it. You gave examples of hypotheses that couldn't provide enough evidence to become theory. That does not prove that scientists hold a belief that something is absolutely not falsifiable. Even if they accept evolution as a fact, they still say there is a possibility that it is false. Someone just has to prove it with evidence that either breaks the theory down or evidence for an alternative, better theory.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki I agree that scientists are still people. No argument there. They in fact can be irrational. The fact that roughly 7% of scientists believe in a personal God proves this.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki This indeed should happen. If you have no opposition, you lose a lot of motivation to find, and continue to find evidence.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@iz2sicc And surely, if there were to be a god of some kind, they would in fact *be* part of nature? (and for many people, nature is in fact the phyiscal manifestation of god)
KristofskiKabuki 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki The religious people I speak to see nature as EVIDENCE of God. They speak spiritually about God being in everything. They argue that God is outside of the realm of nature. She is not constricted to the laws of our Universe. This is why she can supposedly magically create things like time and space and needs no creator of her own.
iz2sicc 1 week ago
@KristofskiKabuki
It rocks and is the most humble one TBH !
not like religious nuts who claim god is ABC and not like atheists who are adamant there is no god
sarabjeet67 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KristofskiKabuki
It rocks and is the most humble one TBH
not like religious nuts who claim god is ABC and not like atheists who are adamant there is no god
sarabjeet67 1 week ago
Comment removed
KristofskiKabuki 1 month ago
im agnostic and think ateists a major douches agnostic is yhe best religion becaus can u prov god excists yea but wut about the other religions they can prove it to(except scinetology and morman) so there
xxthugforlifexx 1 month ago
Brava! Finally, a young person who understands words. Thank you. I am adding this video to my favorites. I dislike the term weak being included in defining the term is that implies a stronger position elsewhere in the spectrum, however. Also you left out "classic agnostic" of which I am myself an example. Otherwise, this was a well written and argued presentation. Congratulations on having a working mind. These days on You Tube that is a rare thing.
chopin65 1 month ago
Formal logic can not disprove the existence of any omnipotent being. If we take omnipotent(able to do anything) in the broadest sense then that being could totally defy logic in every conceivable and non conceivable way. Statistically, however, there is absolutely zero evidence for any omnipotent deity that does anything discernible to us.
Eric0728 1 month ago
these differences seem like semantics
123rushabc 1 month ago
@123rushabc Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.
Wiki
Sometimes semantics make all the difference.
burkerow 1 month ago
@123rushabc Actually they are important distinctions. Each refers to a particular position on a spectrum of thought. Labels are fraught with misunderstanding, however. People often do not understand the words they use, or use them out of context. Most often it is shear ignorance, other times it is stupidity on the part of the person speaking. Sometimes it is deliberate, and manipulative. But it is more than semantics, however. These terms are active in the English lexicon, and therefore real.
chopin65 1 month ago
Agnosticism is a belief which claims the question about the existence of supreme being(s) is simply off limit, beyond human capability
There is an unavoidable logical fallacy by trying to define about something clearly stated it is beyond human, therefore beyond your logic, law of physics, whatsoever
my 2 cents
harusame80 1 month ago
@harusame80
Dilemma indeed.
I believe your logic sums up my belief.
steverock85 1 month ago
@harusame80 The word "belief" is not something that is used in describing an agnostic, at least in a classic sense of the term. Agnostics don't generally "believe" but see, observe, note, and speculate, but they do not "believe," which is to say extend knowledge beyond what may be supported by evidence. They do not place values where there are no values to be known.
chopin65 1 month ago
@chopin65 it depends on how you define the word "belief" or "knowledge"
i know that the truth value about the existence of god(s) is certainly unknown, or i believe that the truth value of the existence of god(s) is unknown
There is also no evidence that the existence of god(s) is unknowable, since it could be also knowable.
harusame80 1 month ago
You need to narrow your parameters. If you insist, "belief" is in the context, suggests confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. Again, context is important in refuting your second objection: at the present time we fix on a system of knowledge that we can demonstrate with evidence or true values that are tested. You are giving opposing values that are untested and based in undetermined values.
chopin65 1 month ago
why did kids get so smart hahaha jk
trej44 1 month ago
Oxford dictionaries:
atheist:
"a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:he is a committed atheist"
Not believe... self-explanatory..
non-theist:
"not having or involving a belief in a god or gods. "
Not having or involving a belief?? What is being omited here?
Is not *having* believe the same as not believing?
steverock85 1 month ago
Comment removed
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "Is not *having* believe the same as not believing?" Yes, both mean a lack of belief, not the belief that god(s) do not exist. Could you provide a source by the way, because this is what the on-line Oxford Dictionary states:
atheism Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun [mass noun]
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
disbelief Pronunciation:/dɪsbɪˈliːf/ noun [mass noun]
• inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real: lack of faith:
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis
Has the meaning changed? Does it mean anything else than it should?
But there is still a common ground for both of us.
Non-theist:"not having or involving a belief in a god or gods. "-oxford dictionaries
There is an “or” statement. We have both “having” or “involving”. I can use the meaning of "not involving" a belief in a god or gods. Therefore I am non-theist in the meaning that I do not take a stand in religious debate. You use the first.
Is this okay with you?
steverock85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "Is this okay with you?" I still don't see how non-theist is different from a-theist?
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@steverock85 dude.... I just put up a rubbish video about this.... comment if u want.... It is rubbish though ;)
ummmerrrrummm 1 month ago
So, whilst the categories that he gives exist, he ommits at least four other strands or understandings of agnosticism. So at least 6 to choose from in total so far.
I say this tentatively, because I am still trying to understand. To me agnosticism was simple a few days ago...
I think that I would exist somewhere between weak and strong agnosticism....
I could be wrong, but I'm working on it.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm
Good luck with that. I just think thomaseshuis is just reading to much into this. If you read what Thomas Henry Huxley had to say, the inventor of Agnosticism, then he wanted the word to be stand by itself.
I respect that and his definition fits me. If others think I have to be (A)theist, then I just say I am non-theist. This is a word from Oxford English Dictionary. It is just as valid as atheist and theist are.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85
ugh.. My english sucks. English is not my first language and it is sometimes quite difficult..
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 lol .... your english is very good. There's no way I could talk about philosophy in a foreign language. I can barely do it in my own!
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@steverock85 "Good luck with that. I just think thomaseshuis is just reading to much into this" I apologise if is I seem a bit harsh or anything. It's just that I'm tired of strong agnostics trying to misdefine atheism as a positive belief in 'no god(s) exist' and acting like they are somehow superior to atheists and theists.
I see that I mistook you for one, again my apologies.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis I am going to reply in a pm, because trying to reply to 8 500 ch posts might be ok for you, but is already annoying me...
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@steverock85 "If you read what Thomas Henry Huxley had to say, the inventor of Agnosticism" Sorry but that's not true, he brought the word into the English language, it existed long before that in the Greek language as a position on (philosophical) knowledge.
Besides, his definition of agnosticism does not exclude someone from being an atheist or theist, by their proper definitions.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis Huxley coined the term. It existed as a concept in history reaching back to the Greeks.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
"Ten years before he coined the word "Agnostic" to label his attitute towards the unproved, whether likely or unlikely, in contradistinction to the Gnostics, who professed to "know" form within apart from external proof, Huxley described the Agnostic position he had already reached -- the position of suspending judgment where actual proof is not possible; the attitude of mind which regards the words "I believe" as a momentous assertion, not to be uttered on incomplete grounds."
steverock85 2 months ago
Comment removed
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 "By non-theist, I mean like it is discriped in The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) defined as "A person who is not a theist"" Again, look up the definition of atheism on the Oxford dictionary and explain to me how that is in conflict with non-theist. How are they different?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@steverock85 "the position of suspending judgment where actual proof is not possible"
1. Most atheists do not judge, they just don't have a positive belief in any god(s).
2. "where actual proof is not possible" How does Huxley know that proof for or against god is impossible?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You do not need to defend your opinion to me. This was a quote form the book. I do not care what or how you think. If I do not understand, then it is not my role to tell how you feel. Likewise, I would like if you would do the same.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Quote form the book Thomas Henry Huxley: a character sketch.
steverock85 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not make any claims that I know any better that you. I only claim that I am agnostic-non-theist. By non-theist, I mean like it is discriped in The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) defined as "A person who is not a theist"
My take on god is undefined and therefore agnostic omiting any (a)theist claim is legal.
steverock85 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "If others think I have to be (A)theist, then I just say I am non-theist. This is a word from Oxford English Dictionary. It is just as valid as atheist and theist are. " I can respect that. But do me a favor and compare it to the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism and see if they are conflicting in any way.
I think you'll find they are not. Don't be afraid of atheism, because conservative theists misrepresent it.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "So, whilst the categories that he gives exist, he ommits at least four other strands" No, only one. "So at least 6 to choose from in total so far." No, 3, Ignosticism does not answer the question of belief. Pragmatism is philosophical tradition, not a belief or stance on god. Strong and weak are adjectives which are meaningless with out specifying what you're strong or weak about. Agnosticism still is not an answer to the question of belief.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "I say this tentatively, because I am still trying to understand. To me agnosticism was simple a few days ago...
I think that I would exist somewhere between weak and strong agnosticism....
I could be wrong, but I'm working on it."
The way I understand it weak agnosticism is that we do not know yet, but in the future might find out.
Whereas strong agnosticism is the position that we cannot ever know because it will forever be beyond our limited knowledge/science to know.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
Freethinker is good, by the way, and I think is appropriate for anyone who tries to think rationally or seek some truth.
thomaseshuis argues that you can only be atheist agnostic or theist agnostic. This moves away from the colloquial definition that I was using and into technicality. I think that he is correct here, however he omits the significant point that other categories exist. Here they are... either: 'Atheistic', 'Theistic', 'Pragmatic', 'Ignostic', 'Strong', 'Weak' - Agnosticism.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "thomaseshuis argues that you can only be atheist agnostic or theist agnostic. This moves away from the colloquial definition that I was using and into technicality."
No, it clarifies someone's position. Stating that your an agnostic does not tell us anything about your beliefs in god(s), or lack thereof.
"Ignostic" If you it bothers you/interests you or not, you still either believe or you don't.
"Pragmatic" Not a position on god(s), a philosophical tradition.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "'Strong', 'Weak' " Don't tell you anything unless you specify that you're 'strong' or 'weak' about.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
I kind of look at things like socrates. Am I agnostic-skeptic or non-theism-agnostic?
If it is unicorn, allah, jehova, blue little turles I do know but I am always ready to asume if something is true or not.
When I argue with christians, I argue on their own terms. When I argue with weak or strong atheimst I argue on their own terms.
Weak atheist often claim there is no proof, but I can add the infinity and therefore a god must exsist, not just one but all you can think of.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 "Weak atheist often claim there is no proof, but I can add the infinity and therefore a god must exsist, not just one but all you can think of. "
What is 'the infinity' and how exactly is it proof of the existence of a 'god'.
Better yet, what do you define as 'god'?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
If this world is made with infinity set of objects and each object can be broken down to continues and discontinues parts which are either convergent or divergent for each variable that makes up the object, then there exist at least one object that is your falls into your definition of god.
That includes definition of all knowing god that rules over a supset of other objects that might or might not be aware of his existance.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 "If this world is made with infinity set of objects" Hypotheticals do not prove the existence of a god, unless you can prove that hypothetical itself is true.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@steverock85 "and each object can be broken down to continues and discontinues parts which are either convergent or divergent for each variable that makes up the object, then there exist at least one object that is your falls into your definition of god."
So what you are talking about is an element that exists in everything that exists in reality? True that might very well exist, but that's not what the average person is talking about when they discussing the existence of god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@steverock85 "That includes definition of all knowing god that rules over a supset of other objects that might or might not be aware of his existance. " No, an all-knowing god is not the same as original element.
"Then what about weak atheist? Does this definition fall under their catacory? Do they not believe in any gods? If not, why not?" They don't, because no-one has presented any verifiable evidence. They do not, however, believe that no god(s) exist.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
What is infinity? I only know it has phenomenal to go forever. Is the world is made of infinity of sets of objects or not, I do not know. How do I define god? Is there only one god? Is god a preson. I define god as unknown or unknowable, do you not?
What do you think of schrodinger cat? Is it alive or is it dead?
steverock85 2 months ago
So, you're either an atheist, or a theist? What about monotheists? What about deists?
Agnosticism is basically abstention from belief one way or the other.
This video is an argument of semantics.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm As I remember, the Oxford English Dictionary (at least the edition I had when I was at school), defines agnosticism as a belief that we cannot know whether there is or isn't a god.
What I find funny, is when I identify to both theists and atheists as agnostic, they seem to think I'm sitting on the fence... as though agnosticism is a waypoint between atheism and theism.
To me, saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest answers a person can give to a question.
andyfromsheldon 2 months ago
@andyfromsheldon Yeah... I think it is too. (error - I meant polytheists below)
People want to talk about definitions like here in this video... I could just as well argue that Richard Dawkins should technically be called an agnostic rather than an atheist because very technically he still allows for a small sliver of possibility of there being a god (he is 97% sure - ish), but we would all accept that he is an atheist right?
For me this definition argument comes down to word play.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@andyfromsheldon "To me, saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest answers a person can give to a question." Except it is not a valid anwser to the question; "Do you believe in any god(s)?".
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis It is a valid answer. Why is it not?
To the question you pose, 'Do you believe in any god(s)?', I would answer no. However, it would not then follow that I believe there are no gods. To the question 'Do you believe there are no god(s)?' I would also answer no...
So where does that leave me? It leaves me rejecting theism and rejecting atheism. Call it something else if you don't like agnosticism... It becomes hair splitting word play when you get technical.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "To the question you pose, 'Do you believe in any god(s)?', I would answer no. " Which would make you not-a-theist or atheist for short.
"However, it would not then follow that I believe there are no gods" And that's not what atheism is either.
Only gnostic atheists believe that.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s), not the believe that there are none.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "'Do you believe there are no god(s)?' I would also answer no..." So would I, but I also don't believe in one, so I am still an atheist, agnostic atheist, because I do not know personally or otherwise that there are no god(s).
"It leaves me rejecting theism and rejecting atheism." Not believing there are no god(s) is not rejecting atheism, it is rejecting gnostic atheism.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "It becomes hair splitting word play when you get technical." No it's just a matter of understanding the definition of certain words. And the definition of atheism is, from the Oxford Dictionary:
atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin:
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis I am aware of the subtle differences and definitions in the terminology.
I could counter by being equally technical with those who are theists. I could say that all theists are atheists, since they undoubtedly all deny the existence of Loki the Norse shape changing God. Technically everyone in the world is likely to be an atheist.
Yet this is not how we would classify them.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "I could counter by being equally technical with those who are theists. I could say that all theists are atheists, since they undoubtedly all deny the existence of Loki the Norse shape changing God."
They're not, they are theists, as they believe in a god. They can say they are atheist under specific circumstances but in general, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
Then what about weak atheist? Does this definition fall under their catacory? Do they not believe in any gods? If not, why not?
steverock85 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm disbelief
Pronunciation:/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun
[mass noun] inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real: lack of faith
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis There are different understandings and interpretations of the terms from an array of different people.
Some will say that 'disbelief' as you define it represents active disbelief in God and will attribute this to all atheists. This would not then fit the parameters of my world view. Others will say that atheism is simply the lack of belief.
If atheism is the lack of belief, then in terms of belief you have none. This means that a label of belief is redundant and... cont...
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "There are different understandings and interpretations of the terms from an array of different people." Yet, the dictionary is very clear, as is the etymology of the word.
And if you really want to commit the argument from popularity fallacy; the majority of atheists use the Oxford definition.
"Some will say that 'disbelief' as you define it" Don't try to twist things. It is the dictionary definition, not some definition I made up.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "represents active disbelief in God" Disbelief cannot be active or inactive, it is the absence of something: belief. That's like saying, I am actively not thinking.
"This would not then fit the parameters of my world view." It would not, as the definition of disbelief, wheter active or otherwise is still the absence of lack of belief. Not a positive belief.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis Again I think you're splitting hairs here. Perhaps the word active was not perfectly chosen.
I say active disbelief and you have interpreted it literally. I meant there is a difference between lack of belief and belief that there is no God(s). This is the difference. The latter is something inclusive in the definition of atheism, which is not inclusive in my world view. This inclusion illustrates an incompatability with my world view.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "Again I think you're splitting hairs here." No, knowing the proper definition of words is not hair-splitting it is clarifying the issue.
"I meant there is a difference between lack of belief and belief that there is no God(s). " There is, the first is atheism in general, the second is gnostic or strong atheism.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis If you're going to write at length, why not do it in a pm and I will respond... It is easier and more academic then filtering through 8 or 9 posts....
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ummmerrrrummm Go ahead send me a pm.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "This is the difference." Never denied that.
"The latter is something inclusive in the definition of atheism" No, it's not. Gnostic atheists are atheist, but the majority of atheists are actually agnostic.
Again, the definition is lack of belief, not a belief there are no god(s).
"This inclusion illustrates an incompatability with my world view." Except it isn't , as being an atheist does not mean you believe there are no god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ummmerrrrummm "If atheism is the lack of belief, then in terms of belief you have none. This means that a label of belief is redundant" It is not as atheism defines what I don't believe in: god(s), if I called myself an unbeliever, many would ask what exactly I am not believing in.
It is a useful name for people who do not belief in any god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis cont... and talking in terms of belief is pointless. Therefore the only valuable term or description would be from a perspective of knowledge. So you are either gnostic or agnostic.
In terms of scientific understanding, we tend to talk in terms of knowledge and what is not knowledge. Scientifically, I might say that to make judgements of belief without empirical evidence is faith. There's nothing wrong with this, but perhaps I would prefer to defer belief and not take a label.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ummmerrrrummm "Therefore the only valuable term or description would be from a perspective of knowledge. So you are either gnostic or agnostic." If all people run on pure logic, then this would be true. Sadly a lot of people admit they do not have any knowledge or evidence for the existence of their god, but they still believe in him/her/it/them.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm It does not matter that you and I know it is illogical to believe in god(s) without knowledge, as long as there are people that do, they will have a name: theist and those that don't will be the opposite: atheists.
"In terms of scientific understanding, we tend to talk in terms of knowledge and what is not knowledge." Agreed, but even scientists study religion and it's causes, whereby the terms theists and atheists are indeed useful.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "Scientifically, I might say that to make judgements of belief without empirical evidence is faith. " Not believing in any god(s) is not making a judgement, it is withholding judgement, because there is no empirical evidence for their existence (at least that we know of). Only when you start believing that they either do or do not exist, do you make a judgement.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "but perhaps I would prefer to defer belief and not take a label." Irrelevant, whether you like it or not, certain labels will still apply to you.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis Well you may call me an atheist if it pleases you. That's a lot of points and it's difficult to reply properly in disjointed 500 ch replies...
It is not irrelevant if someone asks me who I am. I will still say agnostic until I change my mind. I am not closed off about this.
I could pull out a dictionary definition of agnosticism and it might very well match all the points you make about weak atheism. I could argue with the same conviction that technically you should be agnostic
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "Well you may call me an atheist if it pleases you" Again, it's not just what I call you, or what you call yourself, you are an atheist, whether you call yourself one or not. The definition applies to you.
"it's difficult to reply properly in disjointed 500 ch replies" I managed to do it, should not be to hard for you to respond.
"I will still say agnostic" Which is your right, but it won't change what you are.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis well I can respond on a pm if u wish... I'm not hiding.... but 500 ch replies are awkward to deal with when i have to respond to 7 or 8 from u....
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ummmerrrrummm "I could argue with the same conviction that technically you should be agnostic"
I have already stated, several times, that I am an agnostic atheist.
Again, they are not two exclusive positions.
"I could pull out a dictionary definition of agnosticism and it might very well match all the points you make about weak atheism." No scientific based dictionary I know of has such a definition.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis You may call me an atheist since you think my beliefs match atheism very closely.
I have just checked the dictionary definition of agnostic and it seems to me that weak atheism almost perfectly matches the definition of agnostic. So in return for you calling me an atheist I will call you an agnostic, since we are talking definitions and semantics.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm
There is not anything called weak atheist. Do not care what wikipedia says. It is not true.
If you go into bolean algebra you see that to believe and thinking the answer is unknown does not go hand to hand.
You can not make claims that you believe and yet think the answer is unknown or unknowable.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Well see, here you illustrate my point again. You have a different opinion on the terminology here.
I was not the one who used the phrase weak atheism first. I was reciting what thomaseshuis said. I call myself an agnostic at the moment, because I do not know, do not claim to nor have a belief either way. I am happy for others to be atheist if they wish. However, thomaseshuis is arguing that I cannot be agnostic without the aditional label atheist.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm
Yeah sorry about that. I thought that you were giving in to their claims that you should not call yourself agnostic which is perfectly fine.
I just don't even really get where this "weak atheist" comes from? When was this made up, and how on earth did it end up all the up to be a definition?
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Hi. See I'm kind of interested to know now. There are many interpretations of these terms including colloquial, technically correct, loose or just wrong.
I consider myself an agnostic and in the colloquial usage of the term, I think I fit fine and am happy with the meaning. Colloquially I would not call myself an atheist. However, technical definitions might reveal something else, which is what I'm looking at...
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm
It would be awesome if you let me know if you find something. Having unambiguous term for my self would be nice. I have considered just "freethinker", but I worry I would have to call myself freethinker-(a)theist as the freethinker does not consider any believe like (a)theist do. I also looked up on non-theist-agnostic. defined as "A person who is not a theist" + thinks the answer is is unknown or unknowable.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 thomaseshuis and I seem to agree that agnosticism & gnosticism refer to knowledge. The video says that too and I think we all agree there.
However, thomaseshuis sets up a dichotemy where you can only be an atheist or a theist with regards to belief. This is definately false, because even if you can't be an agnostic (which I think you can) you can be a deist, which is different still and makes at least a third option.
ummmerrrrummm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ummmerrrrummm "However, thomaseshuis sets up a dichotemy where you can only be an atheist or a theist with regards to belief. This is definately false, because even if you can't be an agnostic (which I think you can) you can be a deist, which is different still and makes at least a third option. " I will admit I am wrong in forgetting deism.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm That still does not mean that agnosticism answers the question of "What do you believe?". True the choices are theism, deism and atheism, agnosticism still is not one of them though.
If you tell me your an agnostic, that does not tell me if you do or do not believe in god(s), since I've met agnostic theists as well.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "I was not the one who used the phrase weak atheism first. I was reciting what thomaseshuis said." I did not mention weak atheism, only agnostic atheism.
"However, thomaseshuis is arguing that I cannot be agnostic without the aditional label atheist. " Which is true because those two terms deal with different questions regarding god(s).
1. What do we know/not know -> (a)gnosticism.
2. What do we believe/not believe -> (a)theism.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm
This person believes = 1 (true, this person does believe)
This person believes = 0 (false, this person does not believe)
This person believes = undefined (there is no truth value)
If you truly think the answer is unknown or unknowable then you can not believe or not "not believe" in god/s. To do so, would be assigning truth value.
Thomas Henry Huxley did not consider himself to be atheist or theist.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 "Thomas Henry Huxley did not consider himself to be atheist or theist. " Wrong, he did not consider himself a knowing atheist or theist.
Please provide a quote of his where he states that he does not consider himself an atheist or theist.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. "
There you go. Just go to google scholar -> "thomas henry huxley: a character sketch" then look up page 33.
steverock85 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. "" Then he had a flawed understanding of what atheism actually is.
He was wrong about atheism, since he did not held a belief in any god(s), he was by definition an atheist, whether he called himself one or not.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm "I have just checked the dictionary definition of agnostic and it seems to me that weak atheism almost perfectly matches the definition of agnostic" Which dictionary?
"I will call you an agnostic, since we are talking definitions and semantics." Again, I've already said I am an agnostic atheist.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
I'm going to start my own religion and call it Agnosticism.
The belief is: Man is subjective therefore as is his knowledge, so it is impossible to know anything.
airondee 2 months ago
i dont understand how the abrahamic god is proven to not exist, as she says 3:34
gregzor2012 2 months ago
@gregzor2012
God is all powerful.
God can therefore create a rock so heavy that even god him/her/itself cannot move it.
God can also lift this rock.
Logically it doesn't compute. It is impossible for an all powerful being to exist.
angeltears87 2 months ago
@angeltears87 And, you are deriving this from.... I don't know, a few decades of your mortal life on this tiny speck of a planet earth? How do you know human rules apply to god as well? Have you talked to him? Oh, are you my messiah? Grow up, we don't even know how many different animals are on this tiny rock. What makes you think you know everything about everything, that you know something like god doesn't exist for sure?
kkksskkk 2 months ago
@kkksskkk
The rules of logic are not human laws. They are the laws of the universe.
For example an apple is always an apple and it is never not an apple.
I never claimed to know every about everything, I certainly never would either.
I never said that I know for sure that god doesn't exist. Maybe one does, or many, it just isn't the christian one. As it is logically impossible for a being to be all powerful.
angeltears87 2 months ago
Weak/Inclusive?
Plarzmo 2 months ago
Comment removed
Plarzmo 2 months ago
Poster is over-thinking something very simple. If it makes her happy she can call me an Gnostic/Agnostic because I know that I don't know.
Nobody knows if there is or isn't a god. Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
That said, if it turns out that god exists I hope it's Mr. Peabody from the Bullwinkle and Rocky cartoons.
HENRYPATRICK1736 2 months ago
@HENRYPATRICK1736 "Nobody knows if there is or isn't a god. Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest." True, that's why she calls herself an agnostic atheist.
She does not know of their existence and therefore does not believe in any god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
Finally!! Someone explains it!! I am an agnostic atheist too. :)
kasy187 2 months ago
thank you. that really helped.
RafikShaheed 2 months ago
What is to you Gnosis/Knowledge? To main Gnostics it's probable an intuitive knowledge. But you can understand knowledge under many ways ... Under a Philosophical Empiricism, or under Scientific Empiricism or even under Rational knowledge ... i mean the possibilities are endless. But all are Gnosis/Knowledge and so is correct to use the term even if it doesn't comply with regular Gnosticism 'cause Gnosticism derive from Knowledge and not "a type" of knowledge.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv Exactly.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@tacv The only people using gnosticism that way are new atheist types, and they're doing it to specifically muddle the meaning of agnosticism. There is literally no other reason for doing it. And no one else is going to use the word that way because it would only cause confusion while adding nothing to any conversation.
As someone that believes in increasing knowledge, I object to the efforts of the intellectually retarded to restrict it.
ehmunro 2 months ago
@ehmunro "The only people using gnosticism that way are new atheist types" Wrong, many theists use it, as do many authors and scientists.
"they're doing it to specifically muddle the meaning of agnosticism. There is literally no other reason for doing it." There is, to explain that you do not claim to know whether god exist, but you still do or don't believe in him/them.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ehmunro "And no one else is going to use the word that way because it would only cause confusion while adding nothing to any conversation." As I said, many people do use it and it does add something to the conversation: If you think it is possible to proof god(s) existence, whether right now or in the future.
Really, just because you find it confusing, does not mean it is.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ehmunro "As someone that believes in increasing knowledge, I object to the efforts of the intellectually retarded to restrict it. " Yet you object to the clarification of people's views and (lack of) knowledge on this topic. You're contradicting yourself.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
Gnosticism is to many the same as heresy, but Gnosticism is also a group of beliefs that are based on syncretism. Also you can be a Gnostic and believe in something different than other Gnostic, since Gnosticism is a broad term to a group of beliefs and not an institution of ideas or religion. What i mean is that the term is broad and can be used under different contexts. Using it under a context of Gnosis/knowledge is correct even though the kind of Gnosis can differ from main Gnosticism groups
tacv 2 months ago
You understand that gnosticism doesn't actually mean what you claim it does, right? It refers to a specific set of esoteric religions. That's how the word entered the English language and that's how everyone outside the maleducated (sic) gnu atheist community uses the word to this day. "Gnostic atheism" would be an oxymoron,
ehmunro 2 months ago
@ehmunro 'That's how the word entered the English language ' True, but the origin of the word is Greek and is not restricted to the existence of god(s). Gnostic atheism is not an oxymoron as not all atheists claim to know or even believe that no god(s) exist, but some do.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis A "gnostic atheist" would be an atheist that believed in multiple gods. It would indeed be an oxymoron. The Greek word is "gnostikos" and an adjective (and it doesn't mean "knowledge" it leans "learned"). Gnosticism was a transliteration by Henry More in reference to the mystery religions of Asia Minor. And it's been used that way ever since. See Meyer's "Nag Hammadi Scriptures" or Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels" for contemporary references. You gnus aren't stealing it
ehmunro 2 months ago
@ehmunro 'A "gnostic atheist" would be an atheist that believed in multiple gods' No, a gnostic atheist believes he knows that no god(s) exist.
'The Greek word is "gnostikos" and an adjective (and it doesn't mean "knowledge" it leans "learned")' Incorrect:
"The first usage of the term ‘gnostikoi’, that is, 'those capable of knowing', was by Plato in the Politicus (258e-267a), "
Ergo a gnostic atheist is someone claiming to be capable of knowing that god does not exist.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis An atheist claiming to be a "gnostic atheist" is actually an idiot. This is one of my IQ tests, really, if you think that gnostic and agnostic are antonyms, you're stupid. And no amount of calling yourself "a bright" will change that. At the end of the day the word agnostic is still a reference to a philosophy, which goes beyond mere "knowledge of God" and Gnostic, in English, means, and has always meant, an adherent to a specific family of esoteric religions.
ehmunro 2 months ago
@ehmunro 'An atheist claiming to be a "gnostic atheist" is actually an idiot. This is one of my IQ tests, really, if you think that gnostic and agnostic are antonyms, you're stupid.' Your lack of knowledge on the fact that that gnosticism is not limited to one definition is not my problem. If you need to resort to ad-hominem attacks, I'm done with you.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago 2
@thomaseshuis Also, you need to actually learn something about gnosticism before lecturing people on the origin of the word (and I *do* I understand that learning is anathema to new atheism). Henry More, the guy that coined the word in English, derived the term Gnostic from the Greek adjective, gnostikos, not from any other conjugation, *because he was describing a family of religions first mentioned by Irenaeus in the second century* and that was his word for the "heresy".
ehmunro 2 months ago
@ehmunro
Atheism originally entered the scene as it is what the romans referred to the christians as, atheists, cos they only believed in one god.
This however is not how the word is used anymore. Words change in meaning, this is why we need to produce new dictionaries.
angeltears87 2 months ago
@angeltears87 Actually the word entered English from the French and dates to the 16th century, and meant pretty much what it means now to everyone outside the new atheist movement. Just as gnostic/gnosticism has an exceptionally clear meaning and is used in that sense until this very day outside a very small subset of atheists who aren't exactly renowned for their intelligence. Even amongst atheists.
ehmunro 2 months ago
@ehmunro
The first time the term was used was the romans (not current ones!) to christians when they first encountered them.
The problem here is people use terms to mean different things, be more fluid, it aids in communication.
angeltears87 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ehmunro "Actually the word entered English from the French and dates to the 16th century, and meant pretty much what it means now to everyone outside the new atheist movement. " False.
From the etymology dictionary:
"atheism 1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness.""
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ehmunro Neither 'without god' nor 'ungodliness' is the same as believing there are no god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@ehmunro 'Gnosticism was a transliteration by Henry More' I am not talking about >G<nosticism, I am talking about the Greek word gnosis. which meant and still means knowledge.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago