Why don't agnostics pray?

[Pappa]

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

Same here. It's just a shame they seem to impact the rest of us a lot.

[hackenslash]

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.

Well, that's because all of those other things that it's possible to be have nothing to do with belief in a deity. Point 1) tells us that you either believe in a deity or not. These two are a true dichotomy, so you have to be either one or the other. Point 2) tells us something that has no connection whatsoever to belief in a deity. The charge of category error is entirely justified. It is perfectly plausible to be an atheist and yet hold the belief that one can talk to the dead. In fact, experience from the old 'whacky warehouse' subforum at RDF tells us that atheists can hold all kinds of nonsensical beliefs. The one has nothing to do with the other, so they are not mutually exclusive.

[Twiglet]

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.

That's actually a very clear expression of my position. Holding that something cannot be known is neither an expression of belief or it's opposite.

"Don't think we can know" says nothing about what is believed, and therefore agnostics could be either theists or atheists. They are not forced into the atheist camp. I am also saying that there are many other flavours of belief than purely atheist or theist, and citing examples.

[Ele]

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

agreed. I am most certainly not a fan of organised religion or of worshiping or obeying deities.
...and until my extraterrestrial buddies come and abduct you all, you should have nothing to worry about...
(kidding... they really don't give a shit in the Church of Whateverism)

[leo-rcc]

"Don't think we can know" says nothing about what is believed, and therefore agnostics could be either theists or atheists. They are not forced into the atheist camp.

No one ever in this thread stated they were.

I am also saying that there are many other flavours of belief than purely atheist or theist, and citing examples.

Such as? Because communicating with the dead is not relevant to theism or atheism.

[FBM]

In Buddhist texts, there are beings called something that's translated into 'gods' but not 'God'. They're not immortal, though very, very long-lived, nor did they create the universe. Sounds like a 'tweener to me.

[Twiglet]

"Don't think we can know" says nothing about what is believed, and therefore agnostics could be either theists or atheists. They are not forced into the atheist camp.

No one ever in this thread stated they were.

Actually, rulebritannia did, and it is exactly the point I took issue with.

viz (note emphasis added in bold):

Anyone and everyone, believers and non-believers are all agnostic when it comes to god, anyone who claims to be a gnostic is a fucking lier.

Agnosticism though says nothing about what you believe. When it comes to what you believe about god (or anything) there are only two options, they are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive i.e. a dichotomy.

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.

Such as? Because communicating with the dead is not relevant to theism or atheism.

Quite so. You seem to be confusing the flaws I was pointing out, via quotation, in RuleBritannias arguments (see point 1 & 2 on the previous page) - with my opinion, which pretty much mirrors what hackenslash said.

[leo-rcc]

"Don't think we can know" says nothing about what is believed, and therefore agnostics could be either theists or atheists. They are not forced into the atheist camp.

No one ever in this thread stated they were.

Actually, rulebritannia did, and it is exactly the point I took issue with.

Can you point it out to me? Because I've not seen that then.

Such as? Because communicating with the dead is not relevant to theism or atheism.

Quite so. You seem to be confusing the flaws I was pointing out, via quotation, in RuleBritannias arguments (see point 1 & 2 on the previous page) - with my opinion, which pretty much mirrors what hackenslash said.

Not exactly, because as I read your post you still seem to think there is a third option between theism and atheism. It is a true dichotomy. You either believe in deities or you don't.

[Trolldor]

The terms "theist" and "atheist" only apply to god but the dichotomies of belief/no belief and knowledge/no knowledge apply to everything.

What RB is saying is that Agonisticism is in reference to Knowledge - comprehension of an idea as opposed to acceptance of it. Atheism and theism are confined to 'belief', not knowledge.


I can accept gravity but not comprehend how it works.-


EDIT: This is my view, not RB.

You are either an atheist or a theist, because you either believe or you don't. There is no halfway point. You can not simultaneously believe or not believe, and you can not do neither as an absence of position is the absence of belief.

[Twiglet]

"Don't think we can know" says nothing about what is believed, and therefore agnostics could be either theists or atheists. They are not forced into the atheist camp.

No one ever in this thread stated they were.

Actually, rulebritannia did, and it is exactly the point I took issue with.

Can you point it out to me? Because I've not seen that then.

Such as? Because communicating with the dead is not relevant to theism or atheism.

Quite so. You seem to be confusing the flaws I was pointing out, via quotation, in RuleBritannias arguments (see point 1 & 2 on the previous page) - with my opinion, which pretty much mirrors what hackenslash said.

Not exactly, because as I read your post you still seem to think there is a third option between theism and atheism. It is a true dichotomy. You either believe in deities or you don't.

Editted into the post above, you were faster on your feet than me

[Pappa]

In Buddhist texts, there are beings called something that's translated into 'gods' but not 'God'. They're not immortal, though very, very long-lived, nor did they create the universe. Sounds like a 'tweener to me.

Aren't they supposed to be beings that have loads of top quality karma, enjoying the fruits of their previous labour?

[FBM]

In Buddhist texts, there are beings called something that's translated into 'gods' but not 'God'. They're not immortal, though very, very long-lived, nor did they create the universe. Sounds like a 'tweener to me.

Aren't they supposed to be beings that have loads of top quality karma, enjoying the fruits of their previous labour?

Them's the ones.

[leo-rcc]

Editted into the post above, you were faster on your feet than me

Years of training.

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.

And he is still correct in his assessment, though that is why i dislike using singular god in my statements. If you cannot say that you believe in any deities, then by default you are an atheist, no matter what other beliefs this person holds.

[RuleBritannia]

"Don't think we can know" says nothing about what is believed, and therefore agnostics could be either theists or atheists. They are not forced into the atheist camp.

No one ever in this thread stated they were.

Actually, rulebritannia did, and it is exactly the point I took issue with.

viz (note emphasis added in bold):

Anyone and everyone, believers and non-believers are all agnostic when it comes to god, anyone who claims to be a gnostic is a fucking lier.

Agnosticism though says nothing about what you believe. When it comes to what you believe about god (or anything) there are only two options, they are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive i.e. a dichotomy.

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.

Such as? Because communicating with the dead is not relevant to theism or atheism.

Quite so. You seem to be confusing the flaws I was pointing out, via quotation, in RuleBritannias arguments (see point 1 & 2 on the previous page) - with my opinion, which pretty much mirrors what hackenslash said.

The part you bolded is true, and says nothing about your agnosticism/gnosticism on the issue. You're conflating knowledge and belief, when they're not the same thing.

I did not say all agnostics are atheists.

[Twiglet]

The agnosticism stuff is a fairly minor point, and tbh I'm happy to concede it. - edit - actually I'm not, rereading what you said. Agnostics needn't be atheists. They can be anything.

The important point (for me) is that supernatural beliefs are categorised as just that, rather than automatically being plonked into atheism, because they come without a deity attached.