Good time to point out there is a huge difference between being agnostic and agnostcism. One is a literal state of being, not specific to religion. The other is an ideology toward “deities” based around being agnostic in the topic.
It’s just how -ic and -ism be. Most people that say they are agnostic do not follow agnosticism, even if they may share some of its very widely ranged ideas and concepts.
Richard Dawkins referred to himself as a nontheist as a better term then atheist in one of his books. He said there is no such thing as an agnostic, either you believe or you don’t believe. If undeniable proof of the existence of a god comes along and you refuse to believe then you are just a fool.
It’s that muddy middle that has many atheists describing atheism as “hard” and “soft”. If the answer to the question “do you believe in a god or gods” is anything other than yes, you’re an atheist.
All isms are idealogies attached to their leading premise. Atheism is no exception to any other word in this regard.
It is the people’s poor understanding of language but allure to social labels that has caused the word, which is otherwise very clear, to now be seen on a spectrum. Like how people now refer to LLMs as AI, for lack of understanding the fundamentals of the terminology first.
There are those that misunderstand it to mean a-theism instead of atheos-ism. Which is madd
If the answer to the question “do you believe in a god or gods” is anything other than yes, you’re an atheist.
No. We have preexisting terms for this and atheism is, at best, a distant association for its crossover similarities of that statement. You are simply describing the state of being nontheistic, no isms necessarily attached.
There are many isms that fit into your statement by being nontheistic positions. Atheism is just one of many. However a person can be nontheistic and not adhere to any of them, since every individual is capable of rejecting any ideology. Those that don’t even know about the idea of deities aren’t even capable of aligning to theism or atheism, for example.
No. You’re just at different levels of not believing. “While I know Jesus existed I’m just not convinced he was the son of a god” and “There is no way any god exists” will both get you to Hell according to the Bible, or beheaded for heresy depending where and when you are.
An ideology that asserts itself without knowledge is, by definition, a belief.Tbis is why, in science, we talk of theory and not belief. It acknowledges that gaps of knowledge are filled by assumption based on likelihood, but fact is never asserted until a bridge of knowledge is completely constructed.
Dawkins refers to the theism of our species. However he knows as much of our reality as anyone else. Very, very little. But take comfort in knowing that science, at least philosophically, would pursue what is beyond a deity should one ever be known. Or none of this is real. You don’t actually know.
Good time to point out there is a huge difference between being agnostic and agnostcism. One is a literal state of being, not specific to religion. The other is an ideology toward “deities” based around being agnostic in the topic.
It’s just how -ic and -ism be. Most people that say they are agnostic do not follow agnosticism, even if they may share some of its very widely ranged ideas and concepts.
Richard Dawkins referred to himself as a nontheist as a better term then atheist in one of his books. He said there is no such thing as an agnostic, either you believe or you don’t believe. If undeniable proof of the existence of a god comes along and you refuse to believe then you are just a fool.
Eh, the converse isn’t true. I can be on the fence on whether deities exist. That’s different from being convinced that they don’t.
It’s that muddy middle that has many atheists describing atheism as “hard” and “soft”. If the answer to the question “do you believe in a god or gods” is anything other than yes, you’re an atheist.
Atheism is an ism attached to the idea of atheos.
All isms are idealogies attached to their leading premise. Atheism is no exception to any other word in this regard.
It is the people’s poor understanding of language but allure to social labels that has caused the word, which is otherwise very clear, to now be seen on a spectrum. Like how people now refer to LLMs as AI, for lack of understanding the fundamentals of the terminology first.
There are those that misunderstand it to mean a-theism instead of atheos-ism. Which is madd
No. We have preexisting terms for this and atheism is, at best, a distant association for its crossover similarities of that statement. You are simply describing the state of being nontheistic, no isms necessarily attached.
There are many isms that fit into your statement by being nontheistic positions. Atheism is just one of many. However a person can be nontheistic and not adhere to any of them, since every individual is capable of rejecting any ideology. Those that don’t even know about the idea of deities aren’t even capable of aligning to theism or atheism, for example.
No. You’re just at different levels of not believing. “While I know Jesus existed I’m just not convinced he was the son of a god” and “There is no way any god exists” will both get you to Hell according to the Bible, or beheaded for heresy depending where and when you are.
Well, the opinion of Christians on my eligibility to burn in hell isn’t my yardstick, thank god.
An ideology that asserts itself without knowledge is, by definition, a belief.Tbis is why, in science, we talk of theory and not belief. It acknowledges that gaps of knowledge are filled by assumption based on likelihood, but fact is never asserted until a bridge of knowledge is completely constructed.
Dawkins refers to the theism of our species. However he knows as much of our reality as anyone else. Very, very little. But take comfort in knowing that science, at least philosophically, would pursue what is beyond a deity should one ever be known. Or none of this is real. You don’t actually know.