segnosaur Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Mighty AC - that clarifies things in a new way for me. I'm that rare bird - an Agnostic Atheist Christian. Ummm... don't think that's possible. While a person could be both atheist and agnostic, pretty by definition a Christian is someone who believes in a 'holy' Jesus (and thus a god in some form). This would make it impossible to be both an Atheist and a Christian. Unless you somehow thought someone like Jebus once existed, even if he wasn't really "son of god", and had some things worth saying. But I figure most people would not consider that to be a "christian". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 MH, that's not really conceptually true. All atheism means is a person does not believe in God. In the same way, the agnostic doesn't believe in God either. Religious - There is a god. Athiest - There is no god. Agnostic - There may be a god, there may not be a god, current information cannot conclude either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Ghost, that's a common misconception, which I ranted about earlier. Read post #48 and #49...I don't know how to link to other posts yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Then what is an agnostic ? Is an agnostic just an atheist with a bit more of an open mind ? I'll use Schrodinger's Cat as an example. Might not be the best example, but here we go. Inside the box there is a cat. The cat could alive, and the cat could be dead. You can make the claim that the cat is dead. You can also make the claim that the cat is alive. But there is only one true state the cat is in. Without opening the box, you have no way to confirm either way. So both states can exist at the same time, which to me is the agnostic view. Both possibilities exist until more investigation/evidence is gatheres. Replace the cat with the concept of god. With the box closed, the only true position to take is the agnostic view because both states can exist at the same time. God is in the box, and god is not in the box. Theists make the claim that god is in the box, while the opposite is true for atheists, while agnostics recognize that either could be true, but is not convinced until you open the box to confirm either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Ghost, that's a common misconception, which I ranted about earlier. Read post #48 and #49...I don't know how to link to other posts yet. It's not a misconception, it's more of a simplification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Yes, an impossible position certainly is rare. I'm also an agnostic atheist or weak atheist. What's your story then? What do mean by Christian? Do you attend a church but don't subscribe to the message? No - don't attend, do subscribe to the main thesis of the message, but don't subscribe to the trimmings and adornments added to sell the message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 While a person could be both atheist and agnostic, pretty by definition a Christian is someone who believes in a 'holy' Jesus (and thus a god in some form). This would make it impossible to be both an Atheist and a Christian. I am not most people - I will keep you guessing ! I don't even agree with my own definition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Ghost, that's a common misconception, which I ranted about earlier. Read post #48 and #49...I don't know how to link to other posts yet. I'm not sure if his definition is completely incorrect. While you are right in that a belief in god (theistic or athesitic) is different from thinking we can prove god (agnostic or gnostic), that doesn't mean that its impossible for an individual to be completely agnostic because they don't have a belief in god either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 No - don't attend, do subscribe to the main thesis of the message, but don't subscribe to the trimmings and adornments added to sell the message. If by that you mean you don't go to church or actively pray, that doesn't make you an 'atheist'. All that is needed to be a 'theist' is to believe in some sort of supernatural entity. Whether you do anything in your life to try to appeal to that entity (pray, go to church, or do anything to acknowledge they exist) is irrelevant. If you believe that there was a Jesus, and he was more than just some dirty smelly hippy spouting off stories hanging around with a bunch of his friends in the middle east a few millenia ago, then you're a thesit, even if you've never set foot in a church, prayed, or have done anything outwardly "religious". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I understand exactly what Michael Hardner means. I tell people I'm a Christian Atheist all the time and they don't get it either. Jesus has a philosophy for a way of life and relating to others. If you distinguish that from the supernatural bits about deities and miracles, then you can ascribe to the philosophies of Jesus without believing in the fictional parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I understand exactly what Michael Hardner means. I tell people I'm a Christian Atheist all the time and they don't get it either. Jesus has a philosophy for a way of life and relating to others. If you distinguish that from the supernatural bits about deities and miracles, then you can ascribe to the philosophies of Jesus without believing in the fictional parts. Fictional according to who? You? The Bible is a history book not a nursery rhyme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 If by that you mean you don't go to church or actively pray, that doesn't make you an 'atheist'. All that is needed to be a 'theist' is to believe in some sort of supernatural entity. Whether you do anything in your life to try to appeal to that entity (pray, go to church, or do anything to acknowledge they exist) is irrelevant. If you believe that there was a Jesus, and he was more than just some dirty smelly hippy spouting off stories hanging around with a bunch of his friends in the middle east a few millenia ago, then you're a thesit, even if you've never set foot in a church, prayed, or have done anything outwardly "religious". Like I said ... Agnostic Atheist Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I'll use Schrodinger's Cat as an example. Might not be the best example, but here we go. Inside the box there is a cat. The cat could alive, and the cat could be dead. You can make the claim that the cat is dead. You can also make the claim that the cat is alive. But there is only one true state the cat is in. Without opening the box, you have no way to confirm either way. So both states can exist at the same time, which to me is the agnostic view. Both possibilities exist until more investigation/evidence is gatheres. Replace the cat with the concept of god. With the box closed, the only true position to take is the agnostic view because both states can exist at the same time. God is in the box, and god is not in the box. Theists make the claim that god is in the box, while the opposite is true for atheists, while agnostics recognize that either could be true, but is not convinced until you open the box to confirm either way. That's not a simplification it's just wrong. In your oversimplification you claim all atheists are gnostics which was the point of my earlier rant. The religious like to make Atheism into a belief system when really it is just a lack of belief. 1. Gnostic Theists - I know a box god exists 2. Agnostic Theist - I believe in box god but I don't know for sure if that belief is true (rare position) 3. Gnostic Atheist - I know there is no box god. 4. Agnostic Atheist - I don't believe in a box god but I won't state box gods don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Agnostic Theist is logically impossible. The proper analogy would be, "I believe in box god, but I don't know if box god exists." You can't very well believe in something if you don't know that it exists. By believing in it, you thereby acknowledge its existence. If you don't believe in something, you could leave room for the possibility of that something's existence or claim that it doesn't exist at all. Here's how I would write it: 1. Gnostic Theist -- I believe in a box god because I know it exists. 2. Agnostic Theist -- I believe in a box god, but I don't know if it exists. 3. Gnostic Atheist -- I don't believe in a box god because there is no box god. 4. Agnostic Atheist -- I don't believe in a box god because I don't know if a box god exists. Edited October 25, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I would go even further and say if someone that does claim to be an agnostic theist exists, they're still an atheist. It's like saying, "I want to believe in box god, but I don't know if box god exists." Someone that believes in something, but they really don't know if that thing exists or not is almost by definition delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Fictional according to who? The bible is a non-fiction book. Many people label the bible as fiction because it is filled with a bunch of stories that are clearly not true. However, that is not what what the labels fiction and non-fiction mean. David Icke's books are crackpot nonsense, but are still labelled as non-fiction because the author believes what he is saying to be true. Just because he is wrong, and deluded, doesn't change the intent of the author. The same goes for Sylvia Brown. Her books are both full of nonsense and wrong, but they are still non-fiction. The Bible is a history book not a nursery rhyme. The bible is neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 The bible is a non-fiction book. Many people label the bible as fiction because it is filled with a bunch of stories that are clearly not true. However, that is not what what the labels fiction and non-fiction mean. David Icke's books are crackpot nonsense, but are still labelled as non-fiction because the author believes what he is saying to be true. Just because he is wrong, and deluded, doesn't change the intent of the author. The same goes for Sylvia Brown. Her books are both full of nonsense and wrong, but they are still non-fiction. The bible is neither. The events in the Bible are backed up by history, they are fact. If you choose not to believe the facts that's your problem. I hope it's working out well for you. Don't bother responding because I really don't care what else you have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 The events in the Bible are backed up by history, they are fact. If you choose not to believe the facts that's your problem. I hope it's working out well for you. Don't bother responding because I really don't care what else you have to say. Not a great inducement to discussion there, Mr. C. The events are backed up ? Maybe some of them... let's see... the earth was created... uh... Herod existed.... we're running out. I mean - some things happened. Moses was Gilgamesh, so clearly there was some guy - or at least a story of some guy. But Lot's wife ? Not independently backed up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) It has many many parallels. It's not a bad thing to admit that I'm correct and perhaps a genius, Edited October 25, 2012 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 No, I would admit that were it true. To say the bible is backed up by history is stronger than to say there are parallels. You're softening your stance... admitting you're wrong, though, is an admirable and correct trait and would endear you to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 No, I would admit that were it true. To say the bible is backed up by history is stronger than to say there are parallels. You're softening your stance... admitting you're wrong, though, is an admirable and correct trait and would endear you to me. Lol. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I understand exactly what Michael Hardner means. I tell people I'm a Christian Atheist all the time and they don't get it either. Jesus has a philosophy for a way of life and relating to others. If you distinguish that from the supernatural bits about deities and miracles, then you can ascribe to the philosophies of Jesus without believing in the fictional parts. The problem is, that's not what the definition of "Christian" is. Being a christian (at least to the vast majority of people) implies that you do believe in the supernatural bits. Believing in just the teachings of Jebus might make you a "nice guy", but it doesn't make you a christian. From Wikipedia: (Yes, I recongnize that Wikipedia is flawed as a source. But since it is largely the result of collaboration its definition here should reflect popular usage: The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully devine and fully human, and the savior of humanity.. I could also point out that other religions have philosophies that might make you a better person that you're probably following (even if you don't publicize it). After all, there are a bunch of rules in Buddhism (don't kill, don't harm others, etc.) that I'm sure you also follow. That doesn't make you an atheist Buddhist either. Furthermore, while you talk about "ascribing to the philosophies of Jesus", the fact that even real Christians (the ones who believe in the supernatural bits) don't follow all of the teachings of Jebus. After all, in Luke 12 Jebus talks about punishing slaves, yet in the modern world such activitie would be considered morally wrong. So, you are accepting some of the Philosophies of Jebus, and rejecting others (the parts that are actually immoral). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I would go even further and say if someone that does claim to be an agnostic theist exists, they're still an atheist. It's like saying, "I want to believe in box god, but I don't know if box god exists." Someone that believes in something, but they really don't know if that thing exists or not is almost by definition delusional. Agreed, typically people do not hold a belief unless there is evidence to support it. I labelled the position agnostic theist as rare because it really is nonsensical. However, I wonder if somebody who is waffling or unsure about their beliefs would fall into this category. Let's say a person had a cold psychic reading done and they really believed it to be accurate. They start off as a gnostic believer in ESP. Later they watch a YouTube video by Derren Brown or James Randi and doubt is created. At this point they still call themselves a believer but are waffling. Given time, reflection and more evidence they could become a non-believer. Or they may decide later to defend their belief at all costs and refuse to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, that intermediate position when applied to religion would be agnostic theist. Thinking about this example has made me question the rarity of that position though. I suspect large numbers of people who consider themselves part of a religious sect do so because of tradition but spend very little time thinking about their beliefs. Many of these people would probably state a belief in God but when questioned about it (and if honest) would admit that they are unsure about the 'truthiness' of their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) I would go even further and say if someone that does claim to be an agnostic theist exists, they're still an atheist. It's like saying, "I want to believe in box god, but I don't know if box god exists." Someone that believes in something, but they really don't know if that thing exists or not is almost by definition delusional. Actually, someone could be an agnostic atheist if they say that "I believe god exists, but I recognize that there is no evidence and no way of ever proving it.". I.e. the person is believing based on "blind faith". This is different than a person who both believes in god, and thinks "we have proof it exists" (i.e. is delusional). Edited October 25, 2012 by segnosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 The bible is a non-fiction book. Many people label the bible as fiction because it is filled with a bunch of stories that are clearly not true. However, that is not what what the labels fiction and non-fiction mean. David Icke's books are crackpot nonsense, but are still labelled as non-fiction because the author believes what he is saying to be true. Interesting definition of "fiction/non-fiction", and not one that I've ever heard before. (Many people, myself included, use the fact that something is true or not as the dividing line between fact/fiction, not the author's level of belief.) Not saying its a "wrong" definition, just one that many people might not subscribe to. Just because he is wrong, and deluded, doesn't change the intent of the author. The same goes for Sylvia Brown. Her books are both full of nonsense and wrong, but they are still non-fiction. Ah, but your definition of something being "non-fiction" is that they actually believe something "to be true". Sylvia Brown is a scam artist. I doubt she believes anything that she's put in any of her books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.