Why don't agnostics pray?

[RuleBritannia]

1) If you can not say "I believe in a god", then you, by default, do not believe. You are an atheist whether you like it or not.
2) If we're only talking about communicating with the dead then the terms "theist" and "atheist" are not relevent as it would be a category error.

I'd say those two positions are directly contradicting each other.

leo-rcc's argument seems at least self consistent to me.

They do not contradict each other. They're talking about completely different things. Number (1) is dealing with "god", number (2) is dealing with "communicating with the dead". They are unrelated subjects with unrelated answers.

[charlou]

Edit: just responding to comments on the first page of this thread ...

I understand the agnostic atheist's position, particularly as leo describes it. It's not about being uncertain whether a god exists, but just an acknowledgement that one simply doesn't know ... in a similar way that one doesn't know what the origin of matter was. It's not pandering to faith, and I think it's actually quite an open minded position. I see no reason why agnostic atheists would pray ... What would they pray to when they don't believe in any gods?


The reason I'm not agnostic is a semantic one to do with the definition of god as a supernatural being. My view is that everything that exists and occurs is natural, whether or not we know about it. With that view the notion of something being outside nature is rendered null and absurd. I don't believe in supernatural beings, rather I'm open to seeking knowledge about the nature of reality. My view is that there are no supernatural deities, ie strong atheism ... there's nothing 'super'natural to be agnostic about.

[leo-rcc]

They are atheist, what is so difficult about that concept?

The concept is very easy, I'm just not convinced it is correct, because by your definition and Rule Britannias, atheism encompases animism, numerous kinds of spirtual beliefs and all kinds of flavour of what people on this forum lovingly refer to as "Woo".

No, it means that atheism has nothing to do with what a person does believe, but only 1 thing it does not believe in. It "encompasses" nothing at all.

[Trolldor]

Absolute atheism, as the only evidence for non-existence IS the absence of evidence. The moment you find a trace of it, there it is. I'll change that view when someone shows me anywhere in the Universe that can only be explained by invoking a deity.

[leo-rcc]

I understand the agnostic atheist's position, particularly as leo describes it.

Rulebrittania is saying the exact same thing though.

[Twiglet]

1) If you can not say "I believe in a god", then you, by default, do not believe. You are an atheist whether you like it or not.
2) If we're only talking about communicating with the dead then the terms "theist" and "atheist" are not relevent as it would be a category error.

I'd say those two positions are directly contradicting each other.

leo-rcc's argument seems at least self consistent to me.

They do not contradict each other. They're talking about completely different things. Number (1) is dealing with "god", number (2) is dealing with "communicating with the dead". They are unrelated subjects with unrelated answers.

leo-rcc is stating that it's fine to call mediums atheists, which is self consistent. Point 1) suggests the same thing. They do not believe in God, therefore they are atheists. Yet point 2 suggests that it's a "category error" to put them in either camp. Well, if it's a category error, why do you state in point 1) that someone must be placed in one camp or the other by virtue of their beliefs.

Far from being a category error, I am providing direct examples to show where this "either/or" stuff falls down. If you adopt leo's position, there is no problem. All the vast range of supernatural beliefs which don't invoke a deity get put into the atheist camp. That is consistent with point 1) of your argument.

I would personally put those things into their own camps: animism, ancestor communion/worship or whatever. I agree with "category error". There are lots of things someone can be which are neither atheist or theist but something else entirely. But point 1) of your argument disagrees with that position.

[leo-rcc]

Rulebrittania can correct me on this if I am mistaken. He is not saying they would not be atheists, he says his or her atheism has nothing to do with whether this medium believes he/she can communicate with the dead. And he would be right.

[charlou]

I understand the agnostic atheist's position, particularly as leo describes it.

Rulebrittania is saying the exact same thing though.

I've only read part of page one so haven't caught up with all the posts. I'm sure there are quite a few people who share the agnostic atheist position and can be included there.

[leo-rcc]

I understand the agnostic atheist's position, particularly as leo describes it.

Rulebrittania is saying the exact same thing though.

I've only read part of page one so haven't caught up with all the posts. I'm sure there are quite a few people who share the agnostic atheist position and can be included there.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[RuleBritannia]

Rulebrittania can correct me on this if I am mistaken. He is not saying they would not be atheists, he says his or her atheism has nothing to do with whether this medium believes he/she can communicate with the dead. And he would be right.

Yes that is correct, their theism/atheism is not relevent when talking about communicating with the dead.

[RuleBritannia]

1) If you can not say "I believe in a god", then you, by default, do not believe. You are an atheist whether you like it or not.
2) If we're only talking about communicating with the dead then the terms "theist" and "atheist" are not relevent as it would be a category error.

I'd say those two positions are directly contradicting each other.

leo-rcc's argument seems at least self consistent to me.

They do not contradict each other. They're talking about completely different things. Number (1) is dealing with "god", number (2) is dealing with "communicating with the dead". They are unrelated subjects with unrelated answers.

leo-rcc is stating that it's fine to call mediums atheists, which is self consistent. Point 1) suggests the same thing. They do not believe in God, therefore they are atheists. Yet point 2 suggests that it's a "category error" to put them in either camp. Well, if it's a category error, why do you state in point 1) that someone must be placed in one camp or the other by virtue of their beliefs.

Far from being a category error, I am providing direct examples to show where this "either/or" stuff falls down. If you adopt leo's position, there is no problem. All the vast range of supernatural beliefs which don't invoke a deity get put into the atheist camp. That is consistent with point 1) of your argument.

I would personally put those things into their own camps: animism, ancestor communion/worship or whatever. I agree with "category error". There are lots of things someone can be which are neither atheist or theist but something else entirely. But point 1) of your argument disagrees with that position.

No, you're going off on a real tangent. Number 1 and unmber 2 are sepperate issues, they are unconnected, they cannot contradict, they are apples and oranges.

[Ele]

I think it's just easier to say what you believe and what you don't believe, whether it's belief of an existence or belief of another's truth or belief in personal experience or whatever. It is much less prone to confusion that attempting to split everything into two categories, as either this or that.

I am a believer in the spiritual realm and that is a linguistically appropriate description. Theist doesn't fit. Atheist doesn't fit. And I am not reconciled to agnosticism either.

What others believe in or don't believe in is not relevant to my personal belief systems... and doesn't really matter to me.... and shouldn't matter to anyone else either because it means nothing to them other than a talking point.

[charlou]

What others believe in or don't believe in is not relevant to my personal belief systems... and doesn't really matter to me.... and shouldn't matter to anyone else either because it means nothing to them other than a talking point.

Yes, it's a talking point. Whether it matters to someone is up to them.

The belief systems of others really only matter to me insofar as my concern about how their beliefs impact on the rest of us.

[Trolldor]

The belief systems of others really only matter to me insofar as my concern about how their beliefs impact on the rest of us.

This.

[hackenslash]

As opposed to acknoweldging a third possibility of agnosticism as something separate to atheism rather than a pure and wholly contained subset of it:

ag·nos·tic   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

That's not a third possibility, but a qualifier. Also, you missed the major operator in the first sense of definition, which is actually functionally equivalent to the second sense of your definition. Just in case you missed it, I bolded the operator above. Note that it is not 'or' but 'and'. This demonstrates my earlier point, which is that agnosticism is not a position concerning knowledge, but the possibility of knowledge. In other words, agnosticism is the position that knowledge on a given topic, god in this case, is not possible.