I want to discuss the distinct differences between atheism, agnosticism, Theism, and Deism.
Some people view Theism and Deism as the same thing (the belief in an all-knowing God), but others see a difference between them. Some people think Theism is the belief in an all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent (etc) God, and Deism is not necessarily the belief in an all-knowing, omnipresent (etc) God, but that there's is a force out there controlling the world, but not anything that actually thinks. I understand these could be wrong, but it's just what I've been reading. Not everyone is right on this subject, and I am trying to help clarify the meaning of these words for myself and perhaps for others who would also like to know. I want to know and discuss the different definitions of these words, so that perhaps we could come to a universal understanding of the different beliefs that exist on our planet.
I've read many articles on atheism and agnosticism. There are many opinions over the differences between these two. Some opinions state that there is two terms that are located between atheism and agnosticism. Which is: agnostic atheist, and agnostic theist. I understand that atheism is the firm denial/disbelief in a god or gods. Because of this, people say there can't be anything between atheism and agnosticism.
If you are able to speak hypothetically about the existence of a god, but don't believe in a god or gods, are you still an atheist? Is it right to assume that this is agnostic atheism? You don't believe in god or gods, but you are willing to speak on technical terms about the existence of god or said gods. Does this wipe out the idea of agnostic atheism agnostic theism. If you are sure that there is no existence in god, why would you speak hypothetically? Does this simply mean you're open-minded and are willing to speak hypothetically to get your point across, or does this mean you're not truly an atheist?
I would be pleased if there are people who would like to discuss this with me. With many opinions it's hard to find facts, and I am searching for facts. Since it's hard to find universal facts over this topic, I would like to discuss this to help better my understanding of this so I know where I stand.
If you need more clarifying of what I am trying to ask, simply state your question, and I will try to explain my question better.
The disinctions are, I think, pretty well defined.
Deist- One who believes that there is a God(s) but that God(s) do not intervene in the universe. ie God(s) set the rules and then retired.
Theist - One who believes that there is a God(s) and that God(s) do intevene in the universe.
Agnostic - One who thinks that the existence of God(s) cannot be proved or disproved.
Atheist - One who does not believe in God(s)
| Bikerman wrote: |
The disinctions are, I think, pretty well defined.
Deist- One who believes that there is a God(s) but that God(s) do not intervene in the universe. ie God(s) set the rules and then retired.
Theist - One who believes that there is a God(s) and that God(s) do intevene in the universe.
Agnostic - One who thinks that the existence of God(s) cannot be proved or disproved.
Atheist - One who does not believe in God(s) |
So Bikerman, based on our debates would you say I am an agnostic theist? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Yes, probably. |
Interesting...I've never actually looked up the word agnostic I always thought it was similar to atheism.What about Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Theism? Some people believe these are real terms, others believe you can't be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You're either an atheist, theist, deist, or an agnostic.
I've seen good arguments/discussion on both sides, and would like to see more to help my better understanding.
Well if you read my definitions it it clear that you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Agnostic Theist - one who does not believe the existence of God(s) can be proved/disproved but believes that God(s) exist.
Agnostic Atheist - one who does not believe the existence of God(s) can be proved/disproved but does not believe God(s) exist.
Well with Bikerman's definitions you can pretty much apply agnostic to all the terms because it is not a belief itself. It is just the thought that existence of God can not be proven or disproven. Deists, theists, and atheists are all belief systems. I think agnostic would just describe a system. Question is..why is it atheist and not adeist? Why one over the other?
I understand that definition. =] I guess I am thinking too much in technicalities. Oo
I think that definition would work with this definition of Atheism.
"Atheism is the firm disbelief in a god or gods."
Even though you firmly believe that there's no such thing as god or gods, you still don't think there's a way to disprove or prove that there is or isn't a god or gods. =]
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Well with Bikerman's definitions you can pretty much apply agnostic to all the terms because it is not a belief itself. It is just the thought that existence of God can not be proven or disproven. |
Agnosticism is a belief system, it's just a separate belief system.
You should understand the idea of orthogonal concepts. Two concepts are orthogonal if they are totally unrelated. In other words, if A and B are orthogonal concepts and you know what's up with concept A, you have absolutely no clue what's going on with concept B. For example, taste in music and taste in food is totally unrelated - if i told you i was a metal head then asked you whether i liked spicy food, you would have no clue.
Agnosticism/non-agnosticism and theism/atheism are orthogonal concepts. If you know where someone sits on the line between agnosticism and non-agnosticism, you have no clue where they sit on the line between theism and atheism.
For example, if i say: "i think it's impossible to prove that a god does or does not exist," can you tell me whether i am atheist or theist? You have no way to know. i could be a theist who believes the only way to know my god is by faith alone, or i could be an atheist using Ockham's Razor to rule out a god. You just don't know.
Or if i say: "i think it is possible to prove that a god does or does not exist - we just haven't managed to do it yet," you can't tell whether i'm expecting to find proof that a god does exist or that one doesn't.
Or, turn it around. If i say: "i believe that no gods exist," do i think that can ever be proved? You can't tell.
In order to find out what i believe, you need information from both axes. You need me to tell you how i feel about theism, and you need me to tell you how i feel about agnosticism.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Deists, theists, and atheists are all belief systems. I think agnostic would just describe a system. Question is..why is it atheist and not adeist? Why one over the other? |
Deists are theists. They are just theists with a particular belief about their god(s).
The term adeist is kind of useless, because its too broad. An adeist could be a theist that believes that god(s) interact with the universe, or an atheist. There is no real reason to want to talk about such a broadly defined, and wildly diverse, group.
| JessieF wrote: |
I understand that definition. =] I guess I am thinking too much in technicalities. Oo
I think that definition would work with this definition of Atheism.
"Atheism is the firm disbelief in a god or gods."
Even though you firmly believe that there's no such thing as god or gods, you still don't think there's a way to disprove or prove that there is or isn't a god or gods. =] |
Why firm? What's the point in putting that in there? All you've done is now created the need for another word to describe people that have a non-firm disbelief.I think I can classify myself as an agnostic theist ... It has yet to be conclusively proven to me (on an individual level, not by others) that God exists 100% without a doubt ... [I do have my thoughts here and there on the subject, including times I have felt a God/Gods/Goddess work].
Should God exist, it only makes sense to me that he/she/it intervenes in the universe.
| Soulfire wrote: |
I think I can classify myself as an agnostic theist ... It has yet to be conclusively proven to me (on an individual level, not by others) that God exists 100% without a doubt ... [I do have my thoughts here and there on the subject, including times I have felt a God/Gods/Goddess work].
Should God exist, it only makes sense to me that he/she/it intervenes in the universe. |
Would you say that your position has changed over time?i believe myself to be aetheist, however. there is a nagging at the back of my head that something not necessarily a god or gods, play a part in the universe. i mean the universe is expanding AND accelerating, what is it that is causing this acceleration? SURELY the rate of expansion should SLOW due to the pull of gravity at the inner parts of the universe? so surely something must be pushing or pulling the universe faster or harder for it to be speeding up? and how can the universe expand FASTER than the speed of light, when it has been proved that the speed of light is a cap, the end of the universe therefore should not exist, what is past the end of the universe? surely there cannot be nothingness because if there were; we would have nothing to expand into would we? and therefore what is SPACE made of? how can we pass through nothing? if there is nothing to pass through, we cant pass through can we? this leads me to the conclusion that a) something is forcing the universe to accelerate BEYOND the speed of light and B) that *empty* space is not empty at all, but possibly some kind of "matter"
| thebattler36 wrote: |
| i believe myself to be aetheist, however. there is a nagging at the back of my head that something not necessarily a god or gods, play a part in the universe. i mean the universe is expanding AND accelerating, what is it that is causing this acceleration? SURELY the rate of expansion should SLOW due to the pull of gravity at the inner parts of the universe? so surely something must be pushing or pulling the universe faster or harder for it to be speeding up? and how can the universe expand FASTER than the speed of light, when it has been proved that the speed of light is a cap, the end of the universe therefore should not exist, what is past the end of the universe? surely there cannot be nothingness because if there were; we would have nothing to expand into would we? and therefore what is SPACE made of? how can we pass through nothing? if there is nothing to pass through, we cant pass through can we? this leads me to the conclusion that a) something is forcing the universe to accelerate BEYOND the speed of light and B) that *empty* space is not empty at all, but possibly some kind of "matter" |
Well, there are a few distinct points here.
Firstly, expansion. There are a few theories here but what we are essentially looking at is some repulsive force which counters gravity. The initial 'bang' of the BB is not sufficient and would not, in any case, account for an acceleration. Possible explanations are grouped under the banner of 'Dark Energy' and include Quintessence and the Cosmological Constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Secondly - expansion faster than light. Light speed is only a limitation within spacetime. The expansion of spacetime is, therefore, not limited by c since it is spacetime itself that is expanding.
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp
Thirdly - what is the universe expanding into. This is a common question. The honest answer is that we don't know but it is reasonable to assume that the question itself is invalid. Our conception of 'something' is tied-up with space and time. We find it inconceivable that there is something apart from spacetime. This is not so much a limit of nature as it is a limit of our imagination. We cannot imagine 'nothing' just as we cannot imagine infinity. 'Nothing' in this sense means no time and no space. That is the classical answer to what the universe is expanding into. Empty space is not empty so your idea that the universe is expanding into 'something' does not work. Space and time are interwoven - one cannot exist without the other.
