Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Isn't that an agnostic then?
    Agnosticism is merely a lack of knowledge. It doesn't state your beliefs. Believing something is different from knowing or having complete knowledge regarding that thing. A theist could also be agnostic. So for most people who are atheist there is no need to add the label 'agnostic' as it is already assumed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    An agnostic atheist.
    So an agnostic atheist, why do some people say they are atheists then if they can agree on the fact that they can never be 100% sure there is no God?

    Shouldn't the term atheist be done away with?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Racoon)
    How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.
    Following reasons for me:
    Existence of God doesn't give all the answers either.
    Science has given more logic towards most arguments.
    Events around the World which shouldn't have happened if there were a God.
    Events which were performed 'in the name of God' etc. e.g. the Crusades which break some of the beliefs of the religions that were performed by them.
    So many depictions of a God(s) in different religions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Numbers are real things. Novels can be reduced to numbers. Sorry if that's a crap and unexciting response, I'm not a philosopher and struggled with that!
    Haha ok well thanks for engaging.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Racoon)
    So an agnostic atheist, why do some people say they are atheists then if they can agree on the fact that they can never be 100% sure there is no God?

    Shouldn't the term atheist be done away with?
    Because, like I said before, of the unlikelihood of one (especially a non deistic one) existing and lack of evidence to support it but a lot of evidence to support the contrary people choose not to believe
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Agnosticism is merely a lack of knowledge. It doesn't state your beliefs. Believing something is different from knowing or having complete knowledge regarding that thing. A theist could also be agnostic. So for most people who are atheist there is no need to add the label 'agnostic' as it is already assumed.
    That's a rather modern deviation of what agnostic used to mean. If I'm not mistaken, the first use of the word agnostic in the context of God was non committal, which is still what it is taken in to be in other contexts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Come on. Please don't try and effectively put a comma where I didn't type it.

    I'll break it down if your struggling with my sentence structure;

    We could know everything. If we could exist for long enough as a race experimenting and exploring. Likelihood is that we will become extinct before we understand absolutely everything.


    Also, shows that you do not know the meaning of the word theory or how it is used in science - separate note there.

    I didn't intend to effectively do anything, so thank you if I did.

    Once again you do not know you would know everything were you to live long enough, how ever long that would be. That's an assumption.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    That is a misunderstanding of atheism.
    It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods because of its unlikelihood. No (informed) atheist would ever claim to be 100% certain that a deity doesn't exist rather that is something (claiming that their God exists 100%) that theists do.
    This doesn't make sense. Most philosophers are atheists in that they actively believe there is no God and are pretty confident of it. I doubt they'd fall under your idea of informed vs non informed

    Furthermore, that goes against basic epistemology. An atheist doesn't need to be 100% certain to say God doesn't exist; merely having something asymptotically close to '1' is enough to say 'there is no God' or for the opposite too

    Also, that's not what atheism means, nor agnosticism. The latter is a perfectly fine belief to have on its own
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    So an agnostic atheist, why do some people say they are atheists then if they can agree on the fact that they can never be 100% sure there is no God?

    Shouldn't the term atheist be done away with?
    No, because an agnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god (atheist), but who is sensible enough to admit that he/she cannot be 100% certain that there is no god.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leviathan1741)
    We can't really be 100% sure that there is no god, however we can still lack belief in one, hence agnostic atheism (not believing in god but not claiming to know that god doesn't exist)
    This is what atheism is, which I think is why some religious believers/agnostics are confused by the principle
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Haha ok well thanks for engaging.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ha disappointing I know.

    Numbers are real.

    Novels are abstract ideas, as one thing.

    The components of a novel are numerical values.

    Actually I'd say that ideas and therefore thoughts can be reduced to numerical values.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by YesAllMen)
    This doesn't make sense. Most philosophers are atheists in that they actively believe there is no God and are pretty confident of it. I doubt they'd fall under your idea of informed vs non informed

    Furthermore, that goes against basic epistemology. An atheist doesn't need to be 100% certain to say God doesn't exist; merely having something asymptotically close to '1' is enough to say 'there is no God' or for the opposite too

    Also, that's not what atheism means, nor agnosticism. The latter is a perfectly fine belief to have on its own
    Firstly I suggest you take a closer look at the definition of both agnosticism and atheism.

    Secondly, I am also an atheist that believes that a god doesn't exist that doesn't mean I am 100% sure that one doesn't. If I am only 80% sure then I can't go around declaring 'yeah god definitely doesn't exist' that doesn't make sense.
    Not even Dawkins claims to be 100% sure.
    Well no, it's not enough. The point of being 100% sure is that the value is exactly one and not tending to one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Cool, I'm happy I found this thread as I was just about to make a completely different one for this question.
    What do you (or atheists in general) believe about the origin of the first living cell/object?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I didn't intend to effectively do anything, so thank you if I did.

    Once again you do not know you would know everything were you to live long enough, how ever long that would be. That's an assumption.
    You literally misread the sentence entirely. Go back and try again.

    It is highly likely, given our track record that we would remain without answers....if we die out before the answers happen, this does not change the fact that by Bayesian Inference we would have got there eventually.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Firstly I suggest you take a closer look at the definition of both agnosticism and atheism.

    Secondly, I am also an atheist that believes that a god doesn't exist that doesn't mean I am sure that one doesn't.
    Well no, it's not enough. The point of being 100% sure is that the value is exactly one and not tending to one.
    I suggest you follow your own advice here. Huxley never defined agnostic in this sense, and was often critical of the subject of atheism itself. Most modern dictionarys define the definition like that and the more relevant sources (for example the IEP) follow my definition too. See here:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosop...theism/cs2qkka

    Of course it's enough. Sorry, but the relevant experts disagree with you on here and you've done nothing to discredit the literature that's gone into this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Do you believe that Jesus was a special man in any way or 'just some random human'?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Cool, I'm happy I found this thread as I was just about to make a completely different one for this question.
    What do you (or atheists in general) believe about the origin of the first living cell/object?
    I'm not an athiest, but I'll take a stab at the what I think an atheist would say and then see how close I get when atheists actually answer.

    Most atheists will be committed to some sort of naturalism or materialism and argue that the origin of life was a natural process. They may refrain from saying exactly how the first cell originated due to the distance science has to go yet, or they may allude to some of the more promising theories such as the RNA world hypothesis.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YesAllMen)
    I suggest you follow your own advice here. Huxley never defined agnostic in this sense, and was often critical of the subject of atheism itself. Most modern dictionarys define the definition like that and the more relevant sources (for example the IEP) follow my definition too. See here:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosop...theism/cs2qkka

    Of course it's enough. Sorry, but the relevant experts disagree with you on here and you've done nothing to discredit the literature that's gone into this.
    PRSOM


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    That's a rather modern deviation of what agnostic used to mean. If I'm not mistaken, the first use of the word agnostic in the context of God was non committal, which is still what it is taken in to be in other contexts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Agnostic is literally Greek for 'without knowledge'
    So I can be a theist that says 'I believe a god exists for personal reasons and experience but due to lack of knowledge I cannot say for sure that one does definitely exists.' That would be an agnostic theist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    On the matter of deities, I don't see any truth in any holy book or religion. If there is a god, he has little or nothing to do with our delusions & excuses. That being said, I don't think there is much objective reason to worry about the existence of a God.

    (Original post by Racoon)
    I didn't intend to effectively do anything, so thank you if I did.Once again you do not know you would know everything were you to live long enough, how ever long that would be. That's an assumption.
    Better to assume you will learn the truth in time rather than assume there is truth in a delusion. I mean it is an assumption, but it's an assumption based on the progress we've made so far and the rate of that progression.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.