By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 on 13 January 2018
Edit Thread
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The definition you linked is quite a good one. It mirrors exactly Bertrand Russels position:

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future
life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at
least impossible at the present time."

"Just like the definition you gave, Russel disagrees that agnosticism is the same position as atheism:
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can
know whether or not there is a God.
The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there
is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not suffic
ient grounds
either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the
existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so
improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he
is not far removed
from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards
the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to
prove
that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and
the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss
to find conclusive arguments.
An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case,
he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists"

As we can see, an agnostic can lean close to atheism, but he could just as well lean more towards being a religious person or someone in the middle.
You can't call me intelectually dishonest then, for you misinterpreted the definition you gave. As for me. I'm a practicioning Catholic and I'm certain myself God exists. You can feel otherwise, but that's my position.

You should post a source where you quote that from, so I assume it's this one, arf: 

http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_5.php

I don't agree with him by defining atheists and theists alike, arf. 

"The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. " ,arf

Theism and atheism are not about knowledge on the existence of god, arf. They are theological positions on wether you believe in a God(s) or not, arf. I just place monotheism and polytheism into theism for the sake of the argument and for less writing, arf. These don't answer if God exists or not, can we agree on this, arf? Otherwise it's pointless to go on, arf.  

 

Sure. But it looks quite clear to me that a believer (Christian or otherwise) agrees to the existance of God (or gods). There might be some doubters who still see themselves as Christian, but that's a minor subcategory. They believe as we would state. An Atheist doesn't believe in God. An Agnostic is someone who doubts or who thinks we can't know if there is a God (and thus don't want to hold a position to the existance or non-existance) and thus does't believe and doesn't believe in not believing. Russel stated: "The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not." In the way he did because he himself is agnostic, so he states his position and views carefully.

I'm not going to go into the debate if God exists or not since I had that discussion many times over on VGChartz. Anyhow, we could clearly define Agnosticism as a middle position between believing in God and not-believing in God. Let's say Agnosts doubt about God (gods). The definition you gave from the Oxord dictionary, Russel's position and Wittgenstein's language philosophy support my claim.