Can You Be Atheist And Agnostic, Or Is This Automatically The Case?

[flobadob]

If you are atheist are you also agnostic?

[jno]

you can be an agnostic believer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

[Old_Geezer]

They are mutually exclusive by definition although many folk claiming to be atheist like to try to wriggle out of admitting their actual agnostic belief by making the ludicrous claim one can be both.

[LazyGun]

Just because that is your opinion does not make it fact, or even true, O_G.

What is factual, rather than your bias, is that belief and knowledge are 2 different things. Sometimes you will find those where belief and knowledge will intersect; In other cases they may differ.

[mikey4444]

OG...right on the button here !

[jno]

for the purpose of this debate, "know" probably needs to be defined as "have a firm opinion based on available evidence".

[seadogg]

It depends what we mean by God. A good friend believes in God as a prime mover who blew the whistle to start the universe game. Another holds God to be his personal guide and saviour. The first may be described as a kind of agnostic in that he doesn't "know" the kind of God widely worshipped in major religions.

[chakka35]

In that case, jno, I am an agnostic because I have an opinion based on available evidence. Since that available evidence is zero I am an atheist.

I repeat that the term 'agnostic' is meaningless, leaning far further towards the theist because it represents a willingness to entertain the idea of a god despite all reason. An analogy:

A fairyist believes in fairies; an afairyist dismisses the whole idea as nonsense; an agnofairyist thinks that the existence of fairies is a possibility and therefore joins the fairyists in being prepared to believe that nonsense.

[seadogg]

Your answer chakka, reminds me of Pascals Wager whereby we should behave as though God exists as the risk of not believing is doom. hence the prudent agnostic tends toward theism out of self interest.

[tearinghair]

Now I'm disappointed, seadogg. Is that really what Pascal's Wager is saying? I'd thought it was more like 'Might as well believe in God, because if you act as though He exists you'll probably be a nicer person'. (I'm not thinking of extremists there, of course).

[seadogg]

Sorry to bring a materialistic interpretation to it Tearing Hair. Guess I'm just an old Hobbesian.

[tearinghair]

Actually I re-read Pascal a few weeks ago and was fairly shocked at his intolerance - didn't remember it like that from the past. Maybe I'm more tolerant myself these days...

[mibn2cweus]

All three terms are meaningless.

First off, theism is an arbitrary belief in an arbitrary entity with arbitrary mystical super powers called 'god'. A necessarily incomplete list of all the gods invented throughout the ages bears out this fact - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Secondly, the term 'atheist' was originally devised and used as a derogatory term in an attempt to denigrate those who declined theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology

Finally, having read the above, formerly self-proclaimed agnostics are no longer justified in pleading ignorance to the truth.

[naomi24]

From Chakka, //Nobody has yet explained to me what an agnostic is. My schoolboy Greek tells me that the word means "not knowing" ('a' = without; 'gnosos' =knowledge). This means that since no-one in the whole world can KNOW whether there is a God or not (as distinct from forming a rational opinion based on the lack of evidence) everyone on the whole planet is an agnostic including The Pope, the Archbish of Cant, Richard Dawkins and me. //

That's what I said.

//since no one knows if a creator god exists, then rationally, we must be agnostic.//

[modeller]

mickey //Surely you have to decide if you think that supernatural events can happen or not. //

That is not the same as a belief or disbelief in God/s.
There are events /manifestations which for the moment are beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature , that's Supernatural .

It can also be used in the sense of an unnaturally or extraordinarily event.

An atheist could have or be witness to a supernatural event but still totally reject the concept of a god.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //Surely you have to decide if you think that supernatural events can happen or not. //

Why do people think that what you term ‘supernatural events’ must necessarily have some connection to an imaginary god? Things happen that we don’t yet understand, but I don’t believe anything is supernatural.

[flobadob]

I would have called myself atheist but when I think about it I couldn't really claim to 100% know there is no God, how could anyone? I'm happy enough to feel that the God most people believe in (ie big man in the sky) is ludicrous, but that is no to say that there isn't some energy playing out in the background.

[modeller]

God is an entity //some energy playing out in the background. // is not.

[jomifl]

flob, I'm sure you are happy to accept many things as true without 100% certainty that they are true since 100% certainty is impossible to achieve. So it comes down to what (less than 100%) degree of certainty is good enough to be acceptable and allow all those little decisions that are part of life to be made. Bearing in mind the above it seems that the lack of existence of god is one of those things that is more certain than most.

[naomi24]

Modeller, ////God is an entity //some energy playing out in the background. // is not. ////

I don't understand where you're coming from with that. If we don't know that a god exists, how can we know what it might be if it does exist?

[modeller]

God is portrayed as an entity . God is an intelligent entity capable of creating the world and the way it has evovled.
Man is made in his image etc. Nowhere is he portrayed as some sort of aimless energy source.
I'm not saying that an energy source is not involved in the creation of the universe . I'm saying how G