Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
19. I see. So are you saying that its wrong to call
Sat Jul 26, 2014, 05:22 PM
Jul 2014

someone an "atheist" because they don't believe in gods before they've made up their minds about whether they do or don't, and THAT'S why agnosticism is a distinct stance on its own apart from the whole grid that other people like create using gnostic/agnostic and atheist/theist?

I think there are lots of perspectives that can be reasonably held. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #1
In my view agnosticism is a subset of atheism intaglio Jul 2014 #2
What if a hypothetical person defines "evidence" Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #3
Your problem there is that if a deity exists it is not supernatural intaglio Jul 2014 #6
That's still based on an assumption... Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #7
Wrong, it is saying that God's Word has an effect intaglio Jul 2014 #9
So for you, are "natural" and "universe" synonymous with Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #10
Let's use the word cosmos instead of universe intaglio Jul 2014 #13
I'm saying, at the very least, the cosmos itself is the effect. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #16
Now you are claiming that there is nothing supernatural about the creation intaglio Jul 2014 #17
And it is, we can measure the cosmos in all sorts of ways. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #18
But you have assigned a set of starting conditions to the cosmos intaglio Jul 2014 #20
Only if you have those others available for comparison. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #22
The point is that usually even our "supernatural" God is said to effect visible material things Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #27
Things only exist when we have the ability to detect them? Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #40
There is a difference between edhopper Jul 2014 #41
The argument only holds if you assume Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #42
Not what I am saying at all edhopper Jul 2014 #43
That's alright, it's gotten kind of unwieldy. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #44
Well you are right. There could be an itty bitty teeny weeny god. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #55
Everything is natural, including belief in the supernatural. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #45
Nope gcomeau Jul 2014 #46
I did say that it was my view however ... intaglio Jul 2014 #58
Agnostic means... gcomeau Jul 2014 #61
It is always open to the deity to reveal themselves intaglio Jul 2014 #67
Agnosticism is the only reasonable position because no one knows. cbayer Jul 2014 #4
Do you see theism/atheism more as matters of identity Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #5
That is a great question and one I have thought about. cbayer Jul 2014 #8
That would seem to imply that when people shift positions, Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #11
Another good question. In that there may be a possibility of "evolving" cbayer Jul 2014 #12
It may be more a piece of exploring one's identity. Sexual identity and religious preference pinto Jul 2014 #15
I see. So are you saying that its wrong to call Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #19
No. I choose to let people call themselves whatever it is they prefer. And I'll follow their lead. pinto Jul 2014 #21
As a general rule, I agree that people's self-definitions should be respected. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #23
Aghh, Randall Terry. The Operation Rescue guy. Yeah, he was simply trolling. pinto Jul 2014 #24
Again, I don't mean to equate them, only to point out cbayer Jul 2014 #29
It is possible to show that most ideas of gods must be wrong Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #28
"No one. Anyone who says they do is full of it." AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #25
My statement was meant for both believers and non-believers. Sorry if that was not clear. cbayer Jul 2014 #26
There are many believers on DU who are certain god exists. trotsky Jul 2014 #35
I have not seen you express it adamantly toward believers here. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #38
You missed it, but that is not surprising. cbayer Jul 2014 #39
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. longship Jul 2014 #32
I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think they cbayer Jul 2014 #33
Early to bed, early to rise... longship Jul 2014 #34
I think agnosticism is the default position. pinto Jul 2014 #14
I think that is an excellent way to put it. cbayer Jul 2014 #30
Sigh... gcomeau Jul 2014 #48
Sigh... cbayer Jul 2014 #57
Uh huh... gcomeau Jul 2014 #60
Uh huh... cbayer Jul 2014 #63
Actually, gcomeau Jul 2014 #66
No, but I can find you lots of definitions of agnosticism that sees it as a stand cbayer Jul 2014 #68
I'm certain you can. The error is amazingly popular. gcomeau Jul 2014 #69
Ok, keep up the good fight. cbayer Jul 2014 #70
Ok, and you keep refusing to make an argument... gcomeau Jul 2014 #71
Agreed - however you want to paint it works for me. cbayer Jul 2014 #72
How about not? gcomeau Jul 2014 #76
That works for me as well. It won't keep me from responding to your posts, but cbayer Jul 2014 #77
Or... gcomeau Jul 2014 #79
But I do that all the time. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into your cbayer Jul 2014 #82
I have yet to ever see you do anything of the kind. gcomeau Jul 2014 #85
I understand that. You, like most people, only see what you want to see. cbayer Jul 2014 #87
Sigh. gcomeau Jul 2014 #88
Step over this line!! I dare you. cbayer Jul 2014 #91
Prediction verified. gcomeau Jul 2014 #92
You made the best possible argument Alittleliberal Jul 2014 #78
That's right. I'm a lost cause. cbayer Jul 2014 #83
Agnosticism is a good default position. Until evidence begins to pile up against religion Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #31
Unfortunately Theism is the default in our world Lordquinton Jul 2014 #36
Default or just majority? cbayer Jul 2014 #37
assumed default Lordquinton Jul 2014 #100
I agree with that. cbayer Jul 2014 #109
It can't possibly be the default position. gcomeau Jul 2014 #47
I meant it in the sense of "I don't know". Which I think is a common default position. pinto Jul 2014 #49
Agnosticism does not mean "I dunno" in any legitimate philosophical context. gcomeau Jul 2014 #50
? Doesn't it mean "not knowing"? Or acknowledging doubt, uncertainty, or perhaps disinterest? pinto Jul 2014 #51
It means... gcomeau Jul 2014 #52
OK. pinto Jul 2014 #53
It's not at all pointless. gcomeau Jul 2014 #54
OK. I'm an agnostic, not out of ignorance or irrationality, but out of a reasoned point of view. pinto Jul 2014 #56
Again... gcomeau Jul 2014 #59
If you keep having the same outcome from this conversation, what do you cbayer Jul 2014 #64
I already stated what I conclude from that. gcomeau Jul 2014 #65
Some people are really invested in evading the question of whether or not god exists. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #73
And some people just don't know whether god exists or not. cbayer Jul 2014 #74
If they dont know, then they don't believe. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #75
This shit is hard and it is simply lazy to think otherwise. cbayer Jul 2014 #81
It's a boolean proposition. It is not 'lazy' to call it what it is. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #94
Exactly, and a boolean proposition has no place when discussing religion. cbayer Jul 2014 #95
There you go, mixing knowing and believing again. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #96
No, I'm not mixing them. They are entirely different things. cbayer Jul 2014 #97
Yes they are different things. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #99
Having faith is nothing like picking a weight up off the ground. cbayer Jul 2014 #108
My point about picking up a weight is that belief isn't automatic. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #110
While you can make the argument that atheism is just a passive non-position, the cbayer Jul 2014 #111
That's simply untrue. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #113
Well good. I knew we had something in common. cbayer Jul 2014 #114
If I were Person 2 I would've walked away from Person 1 long before the end. Demit Jul 2014 #80
And this kind of badgering rarely if ever wins the battle. cbayer Jul 2014 #84
And it's possible to believe sometimes, and sometimes not. Demit Jul 2014 #90
You and I are on the same page with this. cbayer Jul 2014 #93
To me, the knowing would trump believing. Believing would be unnecessary if you knew. Demit Jul 2014 #98
That's why I think agnostic is the most reasonable position one can take. cbayer Jul 2014 #107
And when you believe you believe.. and when you don't you don't. gcomeau Jul 2014 #105
Oh really? gcomeau Jul 2014 #86
Pretty much everything Person 1 says after Person 2 said they don't know if they believe. Demit Jul 2014 #89
Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about tone in written text. gcomeau Jul 2014 #102
Utter bullshit. Demit Jul 2014 #103
Wow, substantive response. gcomeau Jul 2014 #104
Thank you! I believe in being substantive with as few words as possible. Demit Jul 2014 #112
Since you appear to share another posters insistence... gcomeau Jul 2014 #115
I don't agree with your premise, so there's nothing to address. Demit Jul 2014 #116
There's always something to address. gcomeau Jul 2014 #117
Fantastic post. n/t trotsky Jul 2014 #62
All I know is I get on a plane and say to myself "hope the plane dont crash" randys1 Jul 2014 #101
Context is important Act_of_Reparation Jul 2014 #106
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Agnostic atheism: a reaso...»Reply #19