Creation >> DNA Code

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think atheism is more precisely described not as an existing quality (believing that there are no deities), but a simple absence of something (namely the absence of the belief in theistic conceptions). This may sound like just a small and unimportant difference, but it isn't - it is paramount. Seeing atheism as just another belief like any theistic belief, always was absurd to me.

Just a question of semantics, how then do you define agnosticism? It has always been my understanding that the agnostic admits he doesn't know whether there is a God or not, while the atheist is convinced there is no God. Of course everyone sees himself by his own lights, and one atheist's concept may be different from another's.

I was just wondering.

[Dowly]

Agnostic = Doesn't know if God exists or not, kinda sitting on neutral ground between
believers and atheists.

Atheist = Doesn't believe in the existence of a deity or deities.

That's at least how I see the two.

[Sailor Steve]

That's how I see them too. My question arises because I've heard some folks speak of "Agnostic atheists" and "Confirmed atheists", and I just wondered how some of them defined the terms.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's how I see them too. My question arises because I've heard some folks speak of "Agnostic atheists" and "Confirmed atheists", and I just wondered how some of them defined the terms.

I believe an agnostic atheist is someone who doesnt believe in there being a god, but open to the possibility of one.

[CCIP]

To weigh in as a linguist: the "a" in "atheist" and "agnostic" very specifically means "against". An atheist is indeed someone who is very specifically against the idea of god. An agnostic is someone who denies the possibility of knowing (gnosis). There's nothing tentative about the "a". It's sort of like the difference between "immoral" and "amoral". The latter very much indicates a conscious denial, not a passive lack.

The whole picture is pretty complicated by the way. There are definitely agnostics, and there are also theistic and non-theistic believers who would disagree with religious followers, atheists and agnostics equally. I think a lot of people use "atheist vs. believer" or "atheist vs. agnostic" binaries in a way that really only serves to further their own cause, whereas the reality is a lot more diverse.

[Dowly]

Think I'll just stick to categorizing people to believers, non-believers and those
who aren't sure. Stupid big, fancy words just confuse me.

[August]

It's my belief that all these attempts at classification are what causes the problem. God cannot be defined by man and the strife that results from trying to define him is responsible for a much of the worlds misery.

And FYI by God I mean that as a generic term for a supreme being, not necessarily the God of Abraham, Zeus, Krishna, Waheguru, Buddha or any other religion specific moniker.

Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.

Well said.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Just a question of semantics, how then do you define agnosticism? It has always been my understanding that the agnostic admits he doesn't know whether there is a God or not, while the atheist is convinced there is no God. Of course everyone sees himself by his own lights, and one atheist's concept may be different from another's.

I was just wondering.

There is plenty of overlapping in the ways various people define agnosticism, atheism, and anti-theism. The latter usually does not get even separately mentioned, but Richard Dawkins bropught me to it.

I explained how I differ between and define "religion" (=dogma, institution, ritual), and spirituality (=the craving for finding answers to existential questions). I know that I am not in line with textbook defintions of both terms there.

The atheist - so would Dawkins say - is somebody who does not care for believing into a theistic concept, he is not interested in the question of whether theistic deities exist or not.

The anti-theist - so Dawkins - is somebody who explicitly is certain of that a theistic deity does not exist.

The agnostic is somebody who says that the real nature of the Essence, God, existence, Tao, etc not only is not known, but even more: can never be know. That makes the Jewish idea that the name of God cannot be pronounced (can not be known, that god cannot be understood in any concpetion we build), in principle an agnostic statement.

I am a little bit of all, and more. Maybe I should be more precise in saying that I am a spiritual agnostic anti-theist influenced by Chan/Zen, taoism, Christian mysticism, physics, sciences, radical constructivism, Greek philosophy (namely the stoics), a love for nature'S beauty, and wine gum with cola taste.

But all this is of academic interest only. Life still is there and needs to be experienced. In Zen's tradition I only recommend to not split hairs over these terms but to go into the basement and burn some books. A theory on how a good steak tastes does not satisfy the appetite for one.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

It's my belief that all these attempts at classification are what causes the problem. God cannot be defined by man and the strife that results from trying to define him is responsible for a much of the worlds misery.

And FYI by God I mean that as a generic term for a supreme being, not necessarily the God of Abraham, Zeus, Krishna, Waheguru, Buddha or any other religion specific moniker.

Religions do not own the concept of God and just in case we forget, nor do atheists, especially the atheists who are really more anti-religion than anti-supreme being.

Problem is that you live in a world in which the words you use make a sense to you: this sense and no other. For example you do not write "God" with small "g", whgich emans you do not use the word as a general classifying ctagfeory, but refer to the Jewish-Christian tradition, and you do not use a neutral or female but a male article.That's a framework coming from certain conceptions that underly all culture. From within such a context, an understanding of something that surpasses this context cannot be expressed. Thus the conclosuion of radical coinstrucvism: the reality does not get found (perceived) by us in a total, ultimate, last-reality-meaning of the word, but it gets constructed by us, on basis of the conceptions we so far have lived by in our lives. The reality we believe to perceive in an objective way: is just a reflected image that we build about it. As long as we stay attached to such conceptions, we cannot hope to ever get an idea of what the reality in reality is.

You have certainly had moments in your life, that you would see as "perfect moments". Moments in which everything was right, fell into its cordrect place. The general situation - it was so right that you fell speechless, not in awe, but because even awe had no longer to be expressed. A piece of music, maybe. The view of a scene in nature, the last sunbeams over the meadow. Just being. You were silent, your thinking seized to move on for a moment, the wheels of intellect stopped turning and fell silent for a moment. No interpretation. You was not aware of yourself, the witness, and the the scene that you witnessed, the difference between the two. It all was one. And you were it - for a very shoret moment.

And then you started to think about it. Gave it names again. A memory jumping up suddenly. And the separation between you and "it" was there again. The interpreting machinery of intellect and ego all sprung to live again, filling your mind with noise and rattle. For a moment, you were not just "you" but all God and cosmos there is and ever was, and then you fell back into the noisy illusion again. The veil of maya fell again. What a mess!

I personally do not think the cosmos exoists by random chance only, but the How and Why I have no answer to. It is the absnece of random chance that I call the Divine. That is as neutral as I can get in words, but it still is a word. The Divine and me, the Divine and yourself - their is no separation, just the illusion of separation.

And that illusion is called maya in Asian traditions: the belief in a merely imagined, illusory world.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CCIP

An agnostic is someone who denies the possibility of knowing (gnosis).

I was familiar with the term "gnosis", but for some reason I never made that connection. I usually cop to "agnostic" because it's the common term, but I guess I'm not that either. I don't claim it can't be known, just that I think it's not known now.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To weigh in as a linguist: the "a" in "atheist" and "agnostic" very specifically means "against". An atheist is indeed someone who is very specifically against the idea of god.

Are you sure you are not mixing "a" and "anti"?

In the context of "atheist" the "a" is a greek prefix which means "without"

Atheist comes from the greek "atheos" meaning without a god.

A person who is against god, or the existence of god would be an antitheist, a word, unfortunately not often used.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Problem is that you live in a world in which the words you use make a sense to you: this sense and no other. For example you do not write "God" with small "g", whgich emans you do not use the word as a general classifying ctagfeory, but refer to the Jewish-Christian tradition, and you do not use a neutral or female but a male article.That's a framework coming from certain conceptions that underly all culture.

We're always limited by the language we must use to communicate Skybird. Words are poor substitutes for thoughts and feelings, especially when describing such a deep subject, but if we wish to communicate we are forced to use them (well usually anyways). That doesn't mean that our beliefs have to assume the same limitations.

FWIW though the Jewish-Christian tradition does not own the word "God", capitalized or not, and I have already told you that I am not religious so such associations are entirely your own. Same thing goes with my use of the masculine "article". It would certainly be wrong to conclude from my use of it that I think God has a particular gender.

And then you started to think about it. Gave it names again. A memory jumping up suddenly. And the separation between you and "it" was there again. The interpreting machinery of intellect and ego all sprung to live again, filling your mind with noise and rattle. For a moment, you were not just "you" but all God and cosmos there is and ever was, and then you fell back into the noisy illusion again. The veil of maya fell again. What a mess!

Again no. I don't need words to consider and admire a "perfect moment". I need them only if I wish to describe said moment to another person. In fact i'm thinking of such a moment right now yet I feel no need to assign words to it. Only if I were to try and describe it to you would I need words and that limits me, not only to the available words but also to the limitations and definitions you have assigned to them. Look at how much importance you attach a mere capital letter.

I personally do not think the cosmos exoists by random chance only, but the How and Why I have no answer to. It is the absnece of random chance that I call the Divine. That is as neutral as I can get in words, but it still is a word.

Which once again you only use if and when you need to describe your feelings to another person. Your feelings and beliefs still exist whether you assign labels to them or not.

Perhaps another way to (try and) describe it is the difference between reading a book and watching the movie version. Reading allows your imagination to run a lot more free when constructing a scene than it can when that image is defined for you by a film but it is still limited to a degree. Non verbalized thoughts and feelings have no such limitations.

[Skybird]

Long reply, quotes - forum software once again producing erratic behaviour. All lost. Great.



Maybe again tom orrow. Maybe. Right now my nerves are down to zero. For now just let me say that it seems you have totally misunderstood my argument, my method, and my intention.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Agnostic = Doesn't know if God exists or not, kinda sitting on neutral ground between
believers and atheists.

Atheist = Doesn't believe in the existence of a deity or deities.

That's at least how I see the two.

The way I see it is this, gnostisinsm or agnostisism is a modifier to eirther being a theirs or atheist.
An agnostic atheist does not believe in any deities, but claims no knowledge, while a gnostic atheist believes in no deities but claims to know there are none. The same holds true for theists, an agnostic theist believes in a deity, but claims no certainty whine a gnostic theist believes and claims certainty.

I concider myself to be an agnostic atheist.