|
|
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.
| Bikerman wrote: | 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. |
I am a Agnostic Deist. I don't think the existence of God can be proved or disproved and I don't believe God intervenes in this world *in a way that we can prove it*. There last part is very important because human beings intervene in bacterias, but the bacterias will never be able to know about human beings and their intervention. In a situation like that, unless the bacterias evolute greatly, it does not matter for the bacterias knowing about the existence of humans, right?
But because nothing comes from nothing there must be a First Cause that created the universe. If I say: "Nothing comes from nothing therefore there must be a first creator" is that a proof of the existence of God? The negative would be to say that "something can come out of nothing". And If the existence of God can be proved then I am not agnostic.
What happened before the Big Bang? Are there other universes and dimensions out there unreachable by the human beings?
The atheist assumes that he has the full knowledge of the Universe and comes to a arrogant conclusion about the non-existence of a first creator, the creator without previous creator. The first uncaused force.
I think the BEST question is not whether you believe in God or not. The question is how much do you NEED God in your life. The less you count on god to be happy and to live a good life the more happy god is. God is not asking for worship and dependence. God is asking for the independence of the human spirit, which is great. Theists have a tendency to think that Humans are all evil so that we need a GOD. I am not evil because I have free will to choose not to be.
| saoj wrote: | | I am a Agnostic Deist. I don't think the existence of God can be proved or disproved and I don't believe God intervenes in this world *in a way that we can prove it*. There last part is very important because human beings intervene in bacterias, but the bacterias will never be able to know about human beings and their intervention. In a situation like that, unless the bacterias evolute greatly, it does not matter for the bacterias knowing about the existence of humans, right? |
If the being intervenes in the universe, it directly contradicts the meaning of deism. I don't think it makes any difference whether you can pinpoint that intervention or not; not "knowing" of the intervention doesn't mean the intervention didn't happen.
| Quote: | | But because nothing comes from nothing there must be a First Cause that created the universe. If I say: "Nothing comes from nothing therefore there must be a first creator" is that a proof of the existence of God? The negative would be to say that "something can come out of nothing". And If the existence of God can be proved then I am not agnostic. |
The negative may what you said, but that's not necessarily the logical, realistic response. I would say the realistic response is that we're unsure; it's a gap in knowledge for the time being.
But let's be clear, that gap in knowledge in no way serves as positive evidence of any external, omniscient being. It's a gigantic leap to conclude that the universe had some "cause" and then conclude that "cause" is an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible, undetectable 'thing' that controls the universe, listens to everybody's prayers, etc.
| Quote: | | What happened before the Big Bang? Are there other universes and dimensions out there unreachable by the human beings? |
I'm sure others here can discuss this subject much more thoroughly than I can, but I'd say the most reasonable answer for the first question is that there wasn't exactly a "before" prior to the Big Bang. It's not all that comforting of an answer to the question, but I think it's the best answer we currently have.
Answers to all these questions are being studied and researched. Plenty of progress has been made already, but there is certainly a huge amount to still learn and discover.
But again, any gap in knowledge that we currently have doesn't serve as positive evidence of any being as described above. It serves as positive evidence that we simply don't know everything right now. Many people are comfortable, as they should be, with saying "we don't know, but we're trying to find out."
| Quote: | | The atheist assumes that he has the full knowledge of the Universe and comes to a arrogant conclusion about the non-existence of a first creator, the creator without previous creator. The first uncaused force. |
"The atheist" (whatever that means...we're all different people with different thoughts, you know haha) assumes nothing of the sort.
"The atheist" assumes that there is much to learn and many gaps in our knowledge, gaps that are not legitimately filled by throwing some random infinity into the equation. "The atheist" is typically comfortable with saying "I'm not sure" when they're, in fact, not sure about something. "The atheist" typically makes conclusions based on the evidence at hand, or lack of evidence at hand.
| Quote: | | I think the BEST question is not whether you believe in God or not. The question is how much do you NEED God in your life. The less you count on god to be happy and to live a good life the more happy god is. |
In what way does this serve as proof of this being existing?
| Quote: | | God is not asking for worship and dependence. |
Tell that to religions and holy books that promote him.
| Quote: | | Theists have a tendency to think that Humans are all evil so that we need a GOD. I am not evil because I have free will to choose not to be. |
Free will is a myth.
| saoj wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | 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. |
I am a Agnostic Deist. I don't think the existence of God can be proved or disproved and I don't believe God intervenes in this world *in a way that we can prove it*. There last part is very important because human beings intervene in bacterias, but the bacterias will never be able to know about human beings and their intervention. In a situation like that, unless the bacterias evolute greatly, it does not matter for the bacterias knowing about the existence of humans, right? |
Just when I thought I've learned most of all the "deisms", "teisms", etc. and now we have "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist".
Thanks for your contribution, interesting to learn about Agnostic Deist.
| liljp617 wrote: | | Quote: | | The atheist assumes that he has the full knowledge of the Universe and comes to a arrogant conclusion about the non-existence of a first creator, the creator without previous creator. The first uncaused force. |
"The atheist" (whatever that means...we're all different people with different thoughts, you know haha) assumes nothing of the sort.
"The atheist" assumes that there is much to learn and many gaps in our knowledge, gaps that are not legitimately filled by throwing some random infinity into the equation. "The atheist" is typically comfortable with saying "I'm not sure" when they're, in fact, not sure about something. "The atheist" typically makes conclusions based on the evidence at hand, or lack of evidence at hand. |
With the understanding that different atheists have different thoughts, and respecting those who think differently, I must say that I have rarely found a case yet of an atheist saying "I'm not sure". Science is always certain. The closest they will have come is to acknowledge that "perhaps" there is no proof there is no God, but when they do that, the tone is usually the equivalent of "there is no God". I very rarely find "flexibility" of attitude as probably the positions of atheist vs deists are so far removed, that "I'm not sure" rarely features in their discussions. Atheists are sure as they believe they have science and clarity of mind and vision on their side, and deists are sure as they believe they have God on their side.
It would be a wonderful day for peaceful co-existence if both of them could come up with moments of "I'm not sure".
| liljp617 wrote: |
But let's be clear, that gap in knowledge in no way serves as positive evidence of any external, omniscient being. It's a gigantic leap to conclude that the universe had some "cause" and then conclude that "cause" is an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible, undetectable 'thing' that controls the universe, listens to everybody's prayers, etc.
|
I don't think he controls the universe or listen to anyone prayers. He set the law of physics and let the show run. Free will.
I am don't know whether it was a being, a group, or something completely out of our comprehension limits. There is a gap in knowledge, but this gap may be humongous. Like another dimension/universe/reality/etc.
| Quote: |
Tell that to religions and holy books that promote him.
|
Of course this is pathetic. Books wrote by men to men.
I don't count on God for anything. I believe that if God exists he does not care about me worshiping him or caring about him. He just want me to be myself. And because I love myself I am a good person. It is like eating bad food. You just don't do it because it is bad for your health. I don't do bad things because it is bad for my soul.
But if you ask me: Are you an atheist? I would say no. I am more of a agnostic that "is not sure". Atheists are people who do not believe in God period. That's the definition as far as I know.
God for me is just the initial spark of the Universe. What was this spark? I don't know, don't care much to know and will probably never know. Does he intervene here? Probably not. If he does we will never be able to prove or understand how. I think if we could prove God or his intervention here then he would be automatically not god anymore.
God is the great unknown, the primary force of the universe, totally above our comprehension.
| saoj wrote: | | But if you ask me: Are you an atheist? I would say no. I am more of a agnostic that "is not sure". Atheists are people who do not believe in God period. That's the definition as far as I know. |
Most atheists are actually agnostic atheists if asked directly.
| Quote: | | God is the great unknown, the primary force of the universe, totally above our comprehension. |
You're free to believe that  I happen to think it's one of the most unfulfilling intellectual copouts known to man.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I think the BEST question is not whether you believe in God or not. The question is how much do you NEED God in your life. The less you count on god to be happy and to live a good life the more happy god is. |
In what way does this serve as proof of this being existing?
| Quote: | | Theists have a tendency to think that Humans are all evil so that we need a GOD. I am not evil because I have free will to choose not to be. |
Free will is a myth. |
How can you be so skeptical about other people's blatant assumptions, and then go right out and make one of your own? Where's the proof that free will is a myth?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I think the BEST question is not whether you believe in God or not. The question is how much do you NEED God in your life. The less you count on god to be happy and to live a good life the more happy god is. |
In what way does this serve as proof of this being existing?
| Quote: | | Theists have a tendency to think that Humans are all evil so that we need a GOD. I am not evil because I have free will to choose not to be. |
Free will is a myth. |
How can you be so skeptical about other people's blatant assumptions, and then go right out and make one of your own? Where's the proof that free will is a myth? |
It doesn't make any sense with an omniscient being. It doesn't make any sense without an omniscient being.
I guess that makes me an Agnostic Polytheist. I know there is no way to prove whether or not god(s) exist, but, I'm pretty sure, that if there is such a thing that there are certainly more than one. Multiple meddling gods and goddesses with different agendas would explain why things are so diverse and screwy down here on planet Earth - too many cooks adding different ingredients, if you will. But there's no way to know for sure until I shuffle off this mortal coil.
| Jinx wrote: | | I guess that makes me an Agnostic Polytheist. I know there is no way to prove whether or not god(s) exist, but, I'm pretty sure, that if there is such a thing that there are certainly more than one. Multiple meddling gods and goddesses with different agendas would explain why things are so diverse and screwy down here on planet Earth - too many cooks adding different ingredients, if you will. But there's no way to know for sure until I shuffle off this mortal coil. |
For me the multi-screwy parts are the people. We mess up, not gods or goddesses.
Yeah, I'm definitely a Deist.
Theism is about a personal God. Deism admits the existence of God but does not admit that such a God wants to relate with creatures.
| mgeek wrote: | | Theism is about a personal God. Deism admits the existence of God but does not admit that such a God wants to relate with creatures. |
Its a bit more than that. Deism holds that there is a supreme being - God - and that this can be determined by logic/rational thought alone, so there is no need for 'faith' or churches/religions. Most Deists also think that the supreme being does not get involved in the universe at all (ie no miracles or supernatural stuff).
|
