Atheist, Believer in a supreme god or gods

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Exactly what is the point of having both these options in the profile settings? Especially given they are mutually exclusive?

Is there a specific reason that these options are there in tandem? I was wondering why not simply have "Believer in a supreme god or god(s)" and if that's unchecked, it can be assumed you're an atheist?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

You mean people with blind faith = very likely to just tick all the boxes prefixed with "Believer" (without reading them of course) and erroneously tick "Atheist" along with it?

[wolty]

yes.. and the reason has just been observed ;)


Hahahahahaha, got fucking dinner all over my monitor then. :D

[Stubby]

Hahahahahaha, got fucking dinner all over my monitor then. :D

It wasn't dinner - but I'm cleaning PepsiMax off my keyboard for the same reason.:D

[atheist_angel]

You mean people with blind faith = very likely to just tick all the boxes prefixed with "Believer" (without reading them of course) and erroneously tick "Atheist" along with it?No, not all. Some of them actually "read" the selections and still send back the colourful combination of what they believe.

Atheist + Believer in Heaven/Hell/both
Atheist + Believer in the immortal soul
Atheist + Believer in supernatural events

The most common one is probably: Atheist + Believer in medicines or phenomena which are at odds with the scientific establishment (UFOs, ESP, homeopathy etc)

Now if you think back to the AFA definition of "Atheist" you can clearly see the irony of the combinations.

Some get upset because there is no "Agnostic" option. Which I don't get, why. :confused: Because the AFA definition of an "Atheist" is consistent-enough with the definition of an Agnostic as well. ;)

[wearestardust]

Some people like the lot with chillies and anchovies.

[Rukhshana Hossain]

Some get upset because there is no "Agnostic" option. Which I don't get, why. :confused: Because the AFA definition of an "Atheist" is consistent-enough with the definition of an Agnostic as well. ;)

Not all, but some 'agnostics' like the American journalist and author of 'The evolution of God' Robert Wright are either partially filled with woo or fence sitting hypocrites. :eek:

Carl Sagan used to call himself an agnostic too and I got no problem with that. His definition of agnosticism is pretty synonymous with the accepted definition of atheism.

[atheist_angel]

Not all, but some 'agnostics' like the American journalist and author of 'The evolution of God' Robert Wright are either partially filled with woo or fence sitting hypocrites. :eek:

Carl Sagan used to call himself an agnostic too and I got no problem with that. His definition of agnosticism is pretty synonymous with the accepted definition of atheism. I can't figure out how Robert Wright can even justify calling himself an agnostic. In interviews, he sounds more 'goddist' than a deist does! :eek:

I think it bothers me when believers in higher powers start to refer to themselves as agnostics. To me, they are not the same. :(

Maybe they're trying to confuse me. :p

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

atheist_angel: maybe he's a Philip Moloneyist? :p

[atheist_angel]

btw, 6,000!!!!:p

Now just 1,171 more to go before I catch up with Croc. :p;)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

6010 mate... come on you can do it... you're a mod! :)

[davo]

I covered this in

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=5560

Agnostic is a description over what we can know of a god, not the belief in or disbelief in one.

They are different logical spheres. you can't just be 'agnostic' you can only be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

either you believe in a god or you don't.

Of course, some people identify more by that term, than theist or atheist. *shrug* I personally find it a little annoying, but understandable considering how the word is constantly misused.

[Rukhshana Hossain]

I covered this in

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=5560

Agnostic is a description over what we can know of a god, not the belief in or disbelief in one.

They are different logical spheres. you can't just be 'agnostic' you can only be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

either you believe in a god or you don't.

That's the best way to sum it up, I guess. Loved your article too on this topic, Davo. :)

[Brentagon]

THANK YOU davo!

FINALLY someone understands you can't be "agnostic" OR "atheist".

You are either an atheist OR you are a theist.
You are either AGNOSTIC or you are GNOSTIC.
You ARE NOT either atheist or agnostic; those are not comparable/mutually exclusive terms.

[Loki]

You forgot Ignostics.

I'm an ignostic.

Equal rights for ignostics!!! :mad:



Lots of people aren't aware of the actual definition of agnostic and think it means fence-sitter. I don't think it's worth making a big deal about except to point out the actual meaning of the word. If they care enough to think about it I reckon most will come around to the more traditional meaning with time. If not what's the big deal, at least they aren't identifying as theist when they clearly are not.