Atheists vs Theists vs Agnostics

[GBJoker]

Here:
Do you believe in God? Y/N/Maybe

Agnostics choose maybe. That is neither yes or no. Replace Y with Theism, N with Atheism, and Maybe with agnosticism, and there you have it.

You seem to be confused because to you, the question has only two answers. But it has 3. The third being 'maybe', 'i dunno', or 'who cares'. Many people find this answer unacceptable. But to me it's valid and indicates that the person in question either doesn't care or doesn't want to be grouped with one side or the other for whatever reasons. And that's fine. There IS a middle ground.

EDIT: finally, being undecided =/= without belief. it is neither with belief or without. why is this so? because their definitions are completely different.

Do you believe in gravity? Y/N... Maybe?

What about, do you believe Obama is the current POTUS? Y/N... Maybe?

No matter what you answer, gravity still exists and works on you, and Pres. Obama is still... Well, yeah, PRES. Obama.

The point is, asking your belief on something is asking your opinion, not fact. Therefore, you can't have a middle ground.

 

[ClaireSensei]

Do you believe in gravity? Y/N... Maybe?

What about, do you believe Obama is the current POTUS? Y/N... Maybe?

No matter what you answer, gravity still exists and works on you, and Pres. Obama is still... Well, yeah, PRES. Obama.

The point is, asking your belief on something is asking your opinion, not fact. Therefore, you can't have a middle ground.

sorry you wrong a fact is yes or no like grsvity however any thing that is faith and soly built on faith that can have a middle ground.

i am agnostic why because i am not o prideful , arogant, and stubborn to ay on any subject that i do nto have 100% proof on that it is real or that it is false.

I am on the middle ground so yes you can have a middle ground in faith.
If god does exist i would still not serve him which si another reason i am agnostic. Reason why is i seen firt hand been through the very worst that could every happen to any one.
I know the true face of humanity and for any god to creat omething like this he most be evil.
Then to let it keep going o as well sorry but i have nothing to do with god if he exist.


sorry for bad grammar

 

[der Astronom]

I am on the middle ground so yes you can have a middle ground in faith.
If god does exist i would still not serve him which si another reason i am agnostic. Reason why is i seen firt hand been through the very worst that could every happen to any one.
I know the true face of humanity and for any god to creat omething like this he most be evil.
Then to let it keep going o as well sorry but i have nothing to do with god if he exist.


sorry for bad grammar

A man is not agnostic because he has an opinion of god's personality. Most atheists also dislike his personality.

 

[ClaireSensei]

A man is not agnostic because he has an opinion of god's personality. Most atheists also dislike his personality.

read everything i said is personality is just one reason and that is if he is real don't nick pick at me if you wont to say omething about what i said then read it all then you can.

before i said what you qoute i also said how and why i will not say if he is real or fake after that and only after that i said if he si real then i would nto serve him since after i explain my believe some times i give my opnion on subjects.
sorry bad eng

 

[Tmoo]

Do you believe in gravity? Y/N... Maybe?

What about, do you believe Obama is the current POTUS? Y/N... Maybe?

No matter what you answer, gravity still exists and works on you, and Pres. Obama is still... Well, yeah, PRES. Obama.

The point is, asking your belief on something is asking your opinion, not fact. Therefore, you can't have a middle ground.

Yes I can.

The difference between all of your examples and God is that the question of whether god exists has no evidence to prove anything, and is solely a matter of speculation. A person can choose not to have an opinion about it; there is a middle ground. What you're saying is akin to asking someone 'who would you like to give this hot dog to? A or B?' and telling the person they can't eat the hot dog themselves.

 

[Ewan]

EDIT: finally, being undecided =/= without belief. it is neither with belief or without

The section I have bolded is the problem. It's completely absurd. How can someone be neither with or without something? With and without are a dichotomy.

Ticking a box on a sheet that says 'no opinion' is all well and good but doesn't necessarily accurately describe someone's position. You can say all you like you are undecided but the fact remains that someone who is undecided is not believing in a god. The belief that god exists is not one that they have. They are without it.
To me the way you are trying to get around this is to:
1) Simply say there is a middle ground.
2) Tie knowledge with belief which is fallacious.

sorry you wrong a fact is yes or no like grsvity however any thing that is faith and soly built on faith that can have a middle ground.

I am on the middle ground so yes you can have a middle ground in faith.

The same goes for you. You can't simply say there is middle ground. You need to provide justification.

 

[ClaireSensei]

The section I have bolded is the problem. It's completely absurd. How can someone be neither with or without something? With and without are a dichotomy.

Ticking a box on a sheet that says 'no opinion' is all well and good but doesn't necessarily accurately describe someone's position. You can say all you like you are undecided but the fact remains that someone who is undecided is not believing in a god. The belief that god exists is not one that they have. They are without it.
To me the way you are trying to get around this is to:
1) Simply say there is a middle ground.
2) Tie knowledge with belief which is fallacious.

The same goes for you. You can't simply say there is middle ground. You need to provide justification.

first god is faith their is no prove to him so you could say the same about the middle ground their is no prove however having faith in it is what can make it real to you at lest.

then theirs the word agnostic which is a part of the evident about the middle ground since if their was no such thing then the word agnostic would not ever been made.

yes you can say angostic or people who live in the twilight zone to scared to go to other side.
a agnostic is one with out faith, a religuse person have faith in god a aethise have faith that their is no god. A agnostic is some one who is neither some one who will not say he is fake but at the same time will not believe he exist. To me to say god is a lie is fake since we do not have proof that he is fake is stupid ignorant and to prideful.
However to say he is real is as the same as to say that he is fake.
To me he on the same as any other mythical creature they might be real or might not.

Morals,Culture, religion, these or only ideals humans have thought of over time and like ideals they change over time either for better or worse.
Unlike facts these 3 things can all have middle ground since their only things that was made up by humans and something made up by humans can always be change and toy with by another human.
However humans also tend to think these or facts and not ideals so when some one try to change it they or fronted with by hatred.
As well as when some one take the middle ground humans since they wont to believe these or facts and not ideals they will think the human who take the middle ground either with negative words or actions or will just not believe you can take a middle ground since if they do believe then they will be force to relish these or only ideals.


sorry bad grammar

 

[Ewan]

I disagree with you definitions of agnosticism and atheism. Atheists don't believe there is NO god, they just don't believe in one. Not believing something and believing something doesn't exist are 2 different things.

Agnosticism is not a middle ground because it does not describe someone's position on whether they believe in god or not. It's whether they believe a god can be KNOWN to exist.

Again, you haven't provided justification of why there is a middle ground and why my reasoning is wrong.

 

[ClaireSensei]

I disagree with you definitions of agnosticism and atheism. Atheists don't believe there is NO god, they just don't believe in one. Not believing something and believing something doesn't exist are 2 different things.

Agnosticism is not a middle ground because it does not describe someone's position on whether they believe in god or not. It's whether they believe a god can be KNOWN to exist.

Again, you haven't provided justification of why there is a middle ground and why my reasoning is wrong.

look up the def for atheist it will say some one who does not believe god exist.
on agnostic you said it your self (can be known to exist) that is middle ground because you or saying he could exist but he could not exist.
That right their you said it your self that is the middle ground.
just look up the def if you can't even unerstand your own words.
you condirect your self on agnostic.
what you said n athiest is a double nagitive as well.

 

[Ewan]

look up the def for atheist it will say some one who does not believe god exist.

a aethise have faith that their is no god

Not believing in a god and believing there is NO god are 2 different things. You are saying 2 different things for the same definition. For example, not believing the moon is made of cheese is different to believing the moon is not made of cheese.

The prefix 'a' in atheism means no or without i.e. without god belief or no belief in a god. It's not the same as saying there is NO god as this a completely different claim.

Also, I did not say it was a middle ground. I said agnosticism is a separate belief, independent of the belief in a god. The claim that god can be known is different to whether or not you believe a god.

just look up the def if you can't even unerstand your own words

The irony being that you haven't understood them.

 

[Tmoo]

The section I have bolded is the problem. It's completely absurd. How can someone be neither with or without something? With and without are a dichotomy.

It's not absurd at all. The idea that everyone has to be forced into a category is absurd. And the topic of god is not a dichotomy in any way. This is belief, not fact, not either-or. It is essentially a guess question with a number of possibilities from 'a god' to 'religious deities' to 'aliens with crazy mind powers'. You can't slap a 'yes or no' question on it and expect everyone to obediently comply with the rules you put in place. If you want a solid 2 groups of yes or no, then you must first define 'god' before you ask for belief. is this a religious god or something that would classify as 'god'? specify.

Ticking a box on a sheet that says 'no opinion' is all well and good but doesn't necessarily accurately describe someone's position. You can say all you like you are undecided but the fact remains that someone who is undecided is not believing in a god. The belief that god exists is not one that they have. They are without it.

The bolded part is where you are wrong. Undecided means no answer. Refusal to answer. Refusal to comply with the question. You can say all you like that a middle ground doesn't exist, but the fact remains that people have the right to say they have no opinion, and to not answer in the terms you put in place. Unless of course you are their superior, in which case you could tell them to dance like monkeys and they'd do it so you don't have an excuse to fire them.

To me the way you are trying to get around this is to:
1) Simply say there is a middle ground.
2) Tie knowledge with belief which is fallacious.

1) i say it because it exists, whether or not you accept it.
2) to say that one will refuse to answer until sufficient knowledge is gained is not fallacious at all.

 

[Ewan]

It's not absurd at all.

Yes it is. You can't have a middle ground between with and without.

This is belief, not fact, not either-or.

The bolded part is where you are wrong. Undecided means no answer. Refusal to answer. Refusal to comply with the question. You can say all you like that a middle ground doesn't exist, but the fact remains that people have the right to say they have no opinion, and to not answer in the terms you put in place.

I'm not talking about what someone chooses, I'm talking about what someone's position is objectively. I'm not saying the question is a yes or no question. You can answer in a fashion you wish but objectively someone who has no opinion is still without the belief in the positive. You disagree and just simply say there is a middle ground with justification.

If you have no opinion then does the belief in a god float around your head? (metaphorically of course) Well of course it doesn't. It's not there. Therefor you fall into the definition of atheism, without a belief in a god.

1) i say it because it exists, whether or not you accept it.

Yes you do. Without justification.

2) to say that one will refuse to answer until sufficient knowledge is gained is not fallacious at all.

What are you on about? I'm talking about how you have arbitrarily tied knowledge with belief. Remember when you said if you believe something it implies you know it's true? You have done so to make your definition of agnosticism work.

 

[Tmoo]

Yes it is. You can't have a middle ground between with and without.

If this were a material object or a fact, there wouldn't be. but this is opinion, so it is not the case. Like I said, there are many answers unless you narrow 'god' down to a specific definition that everyone agrees on.

I'm not talking about what someone chooses, I'm talking about what someone's position is objectively. I'm not saying the question is a yes or no question. You can answer in a fashion you wish but objectively someone who has no opinion is still without the belief in the positive. You disagree and just simply say there is a middle ground with justification.

They're also without belief in the negative. The middle ground exists because a person has not chosen and has a right to not answer if you don't have authority over them. To me, your assertions that being 'undecided = definitive without belief' with no proof other than 'but it is!' is equally without justification.

If you have no opinion then does the belief in a god float around your head? (metaphorically of course) Well of course it doesn't. It's not there. Therefor you fall into the definition of atheism, without a belief in a god.

If you have no opinion does the belief that there is no god float around your head? No. It also is not there. Therefore the person is undecided, without belief and without disbelief, popularly known as the agnostic position.

Yes you do. Without justification.

What kind of justification are you looking for, exactly? Factual proof? Semantics? Specify. Until then you'll have to make do with this: The undecided's position is valid because they haven't decided or choose not to take a side. It's common sense if thought about objectively.

What are you on about? I'm talking about how you have arbitrarily tied knowledge with belief. Remember when you said if you believe something it implies you know it's true? You have done so to make your definition of agnosticism work.

Yes, if you believe something you know it's true. A theist believes in a god because they know god exists. An atheist disbelieves in a god because they know god does not exist. An agnostic (should we coin the term undecided now?) chooses to have no opinion because they do not have proof whether god exists or not. I've done so because it makes sense. And it still stands; a person choosing to have no opinion because of lack of knowledge is not a fallacy.

EDIT: lastly, because i feel that it was lost during your reply to my last post, i'll paste it here.

The idea that everyone has to be forced into a category is absurd. And the topic of god is not a dichotomy in any way. This is belief, not fact, not either-or. It is essentially a guess question with a number of possibilities from 'a god' to 'religious deities' to 'aliens with crazy mind powers'. You can't slap a 'yes or no' question on it and expect everyone to obediently comply with the rules you put in place. If you want a solid 2 groups of yes or no, then you must first define 'god' before you ask for belief. is this a religious god or something that would classify as 'god'? specify.

 

[Ewan]

If this were a material object or a fact, there wouldn't be. but this is opinion, so it is not the case. Like I said, there are many answers unless you narrow 'god' down to a specific definition that everyone agrees on.

Again, the answers that people give are not all that important. I'm talking about an objective position. Someone who has no opinion does not believe in the positive, they are without it. Even if there are many answers, someone who answers 'broccoli' is still without the belief in the positive.

They're also without belief in the negative. The middle ground exists because a person has not chosen and has a right to not answer if you don't have authority over them. To me, your assertions that being 'undecided = definitive without belief' with no proof other than 'but it is!' is equally without justification.

If you have no opinion does the belief that there is no god float around your head? No. It also is not there. Therefore the person is undecided, without belief and without disbelief, popularly known as the agnostic position.

Completely irrelevant. The claim is that there is NO god is not one we are discussing. We are discussing ONE claim and that claim is “God exists”. Atheism and theism don't cover the claim that “There is NO god”.

The middle ground you are describing isn't really a middle ground. It's a lack of belief in 2 claims which isn't a middle ground. Also, I don't believe there is a word for this. It isn't agnosticism though because agnosticism is the belief that god can't be known and says nothing about whether or not you think one exists.

What kind of justification are you looking for, exactly? Factual proof? Semantics? Specify. Until then you'll have to make do with this: The undecided's position is valid because they haven't decided or choose not to take a side. It's common sense if thought about objectively.

A thought experiment? Something other than just saying so. Try and describe to me how someone can simultaneously be with and without something.

Yes, if you believe something you know it's true. A theist believes in a god because they know god exists. An atheist disbelieves in a god because they know god does not exist. An agnostic (should we coin the term undecided now?) chooses to have no opinion because they do not have proof whether god exists or not. I've done so because it makes sense. And it still stands; a person choosing to have no opinion because of lack of knowledge is not a fallacy.

No. Many religious people have faith that god exists. They don't know that one does but they have faith that there is one. This a belief where someone doesn't know it's true. No where in the word belief does it imply that you know it to be true. There are 2 things, a belief and a justification for that belief. It doesn't follow that if someone believes something, that their justification is that solid.
For example, my room mate lives 2 doors down from me. I have good reason to believe that he is sitting in his room, however, he could quite easily be at the shop. I believe he is in his room but I don't know that.

Also this:

Agnostic Atheism: Disbelief in a god without claim to knowledge of such.

There are 2 problems with this. One, if you believe that agnosticism is a middle ground then how can they also be an atheist? Also, it contradicts your notion that someone believes something because they know it to be true.
You aren't even being consistent with your definitions. I mean, if agnosticism is the middle ground, what do you think gnosticism means? You keep switching between meanings when agnosticism and gnosticism have already been defined and are clearly different to what you understand them to be.

The mistake you make here is assuming I define Atheism by itself as 'with claim to knowledge' - in fact that is gnostic atheism and not simply atheism.

Again, you are changing definitions.

Make up your mind on definitions. Be consistent.

The idea that everyone has to be forced into a category is absurd. And the topic of god is not a dichotomy in any way. This is belief, not fact, not either-or. It is essentially a guess question with a number of possibilities from 'a god' to 'religious deities' to 'aliens with crazy mind powers'. You can't slap a 'yes or no' question on it and expect everyone to obediently comply with the rules you put in place. If you want a solid 2 groups of yes or no, then you must first define 'god' before you ask for belief. is this a religious god or something that would classify as 'god'? specify.

I'm not slapping a yes or no answer on it. Theism and atheism are defined as the belief in a god and without belief in a god.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/112.htm
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2316.htm

Basically think of it this way, everyone is given a sheet of paper and it says “Does God exist?: Yes, No, Maybe, Other.”
I am simply grouping the sheets of paper into 2 categories, ones that say YES, and ones that DON'T say YES.

There is nothing logically wrong with that.

EDIT: Sorry for the long reply. I hate when debate topics turn into huge replies so I'll try and condense my posts.

 

[Tmoo]

Again, the answers that people give are not all that important. I'm talking about an objective position. Someone who has no opinion does not believe in the positive, they are without it. Even if there are many answers, someone who answers 'broccoli' is still without the belief in the positive.

Completely irrelevant. The claim is that there is NO god is not one we are discussing. We are discussing ONE claim and that claim is “God exists”. Atheism and theism don't cover the claim that “There is NO god”.

The middle ground you are describing isn't really a middle ground. It's a lack of belief in 2 claims which isn't a middle ground. Also, I don't believe there is a word for this. It isn't agnosticism though because agnosticism is the belief that god can't be known and says nothing about whether or not you think one exists.

Negative presupposes the positive, though. You need evidence to support disbelief (or the non-existence) of something just as much as you need evidence to support belief/existence of it. Lack of belief in these claims is valid as far as my theory goes because 'i don't know/can't know' falls in neither category. There are a couple of labels available if agnosticism is incorrect - apatheism for people who don't care enough to support either side, and ignosticism for those who assert that 'god' needs to be defined before any stance can be taken.

A thought experiment? Something other than just saying so. Try and describe to me how someone can simultaneously be with and without something.

It's not a matter of being simultaneously with and without, rather it's about not fitting into either position.

Let's say we have two people in a locked room (A and B). A tells B that a car is right outside the door. There is no way to prove the car is there because the door is locked, the walls are soundproof, and there are no windows. B can either believe in the car ("oh, so there's a car there"), disbelieve in the car ("no way, you're joking"), or say they don't know ("well I have no way of knowing, there's a possibility that it's there."). That's essentially how the 'i don't know' position works. it acknowledges the possibility of both claims but doesn't dedicate itself to either.

No. Many religious people have faith that god exists. They don't know that one does but they have faith that there is one. This a belief where someone doesn't know it's true. No where in the word belief does it imply that you know it to be true. There are 2 things, a belief and a justification for that belief. It doesn't follow that if someone believes something, that their justification is that solid.
For example, my room mate lives 2 doors down from me. I have good reason to believe that he is sitting in his room, however, he could quite easily be at the shop. I believe he is in his room but I don't know that.

There are 2 problems with this. One, if you believe that agnosticism is a middle ground then how can they also be an atheist? Also, it contradicts your notion that someone believes something because they know it to be true.
You aren't even being consistent with your definitions. I mean, if agnosticism is the middle ground, what do you think gnosticism means? You keep switching between meanings when agnosticism and gnosticism have already been defined and are clearly different to what you understand them to be.

Again, you are changing definitions.

Make up your mind on definitions. Be consistent.

Great arguments, I retract what I said about belief/knowledge ties and apologize for being inconsistent. About your point of contention on agnostics and atheism, agnostic as a label tends to be viewed differently from its use as an adjective. As a label it represents the undecided and the belief that 'god cannot be known' rather than simply 'i have no knowledge of god'.

I'm not slapping a yes or no answer on it. Theism and atheism are defined as the belief in a god and without belief in a god.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/112.htm
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2316.htm

Basically think of it this way, everyone is given a sheet of paper and it says “Does God exist?: Yes, No, Maybe, Other.”
I am simply grouping the sheets of paper into 2 categories, ones that say YES, and ones that DON'T say YES.

There is nothing logically wrong with that.

EDIT: Sorry for the long reply. I hate when debate topics turn into huge replies so I'll try and condense my posts.

The bold part is the basis for the whole debate. The systems of 'atheist = any answer that doesn't say 'god exists'' and 'atheist = answer that says god doesn't exist, theist = god exists, everything else = undecided/noncommittal/agnostic' are fundamentally incompatible. To see how agnosticism can work you have to shift your perspective to the latter theory. Otherwise agnostics will always fall into atheism because it is defined there as 'god doesn't exist/may not exist', while in the other atheism is defined as 'god doesn't exist'.

It comes down to the definition of atheism:
Atheism - any belief other than 'god exists'
Atheism - god does not exist

there's nothing to be sorry about; i'm one of those bastards who actually enjoys reading long posts and have read 100+ page threads before.

 

[Kekiro]

This is an image of a newfound species/alien.

You are looking at this image and are asked a question: what is this things gender?

There is currently "no way of knowing" so we can basically only guess.
The fact is that there is a truth here, either the alien/species is female or male OR it is neither or both.

If I would say that I don't know whether it has a gender or not and no idea what the gender would be if it had one. Does that mean I Believe that it has no gender?

We can also look at it this way, if I were to say that it had a gender though I have no way of proving it other than my own belief. Isn't that the same as claiming that it has no gender though I have no way of proving it other than my own belief?

If you ask me, the agnostic way of looking at this is the following: I have no way of knowing anything about the existance or non-existance of any gender on this species/alien, therefore I cannot give you an answer as to whether it exists or not.

My definitions are pretty much the following:
Theist: A person with a firm belief that god/s exist and this is an absolute truth to this person.
Atheist: A person with a firm belief that god/s don't exist and this is an absolute truth to this person.
Agnostic: A person who believes that there is no way of knowing whether a god exists or not and therefore making such a claim has nothing to do with reality.

There are of course subgroups but I don't think meddling in them is important right now.
I think Ashley Riot thinks that what we describe as an agnostic does not believe in god/s, I'd like to think that an agnostic believes in the concept of god/s as well as the concept of a universe without a god/s. However deciding on one of these concepts would simply be giving up and taking the easy way out (for an agnostic). A true agnostic would wait for extremely air tight solid proof before acknowledgin one of the two concepts.

This is much in the same way that people used to firmly believe that the earth was flat, it was considered a fact. An agnostic person back then would think: how do we know that it is flat? we have no way of proving such a claim. He/she would also believe that there currently is no way of proving that the earth isnt flat, and therefore the agnostic person would simply believe neither until one could be proven.

I would also like to add a personal opinion; Someone who believes with certainty that there could absolutely in no way be a godlike creature anywhere in the entire universe and/or beyond has no sense of reality. We don't know where or how the universe ends, we don't know if there was a big bang and in that case what was before that. We don't know what time is and we certaintly have absolutely no idea why or how we exist.