What is Your Definition of Atheism?

[Raticiel]

Dark Lord Erebus

i would say that an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in a god until they find a good religion which could take all their life an atheist is someone who denies all gods existence even if they met them.

you are correct, but agnostic is rather someone who declares there is no way to acquire objective knowledge (also about god, but that doesn't mean negating god's existence - that's what atheists do)
The way of "searching" is rather a way of a skeptic, because skepticism doesn't say "we can't", it just says "we don't have it now". There are varieties of skepticisms, agnosticisms and such, you can't define them all in few words, for example kantian agnosticism is idealistic, but we can't say all agnostics are idealists.
I think it's good to not mix up religion and practical stuff with philosophical stuff. Some people can't (for example me whee ) (it's no good at all xd )  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Such skepticism would be identical to Agnosticism, would it not? No matter its views of what the future may bring, right now we don't know, and cannot know. So why bother calling it something different?

Personally I agree with you: there's no need to bother if consequences are practically the same smile
but IF we want to be precise, we have to admit that agnosticism states very clear "we can't", and skepticism doubts both "we can" and "we can't" (epoche and such stuff - in order to not s t a t e anything)

(by the way: I'm not sure if I use a phrase "to state something" in english correctly sweatdrop )  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Raticiel

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Such skepticism would be identical to Agnosticism, would it not? No matter its views of what the future may bring, right now we don't know, and cannot know. So why bother calling it something different?

Personally I agree with you: there's no need to bother if consequences are practically the same smile
but IF we want to be precise, we have to admit that agnosticism states very clear "we can't", and skepticism doubts both "we can" and "we can't" (epoche and such stuff - in order to not s t a t e anything)

(by the way: I'm not sure if I use a phrase "to state something" in english correctly sweatdrop )

I take agnosticism to mean "we don't know" rather than "we can't know", and that each agnostic tendency or individual has a different reason why "we don't". Looking at it this way means that skepticism is a trend of agnosticism saying "we don't know... yet", in direct contrast to Kantian* agnosticism which says "we don't know... an-sich"


* I want to go back in time and beat the s**t out of Kant. Yes, the Nebular Hypothesis is ******** awesome, but saying "we can know the thing-for-us, but not the thing-in-itself" is just...

BAH!  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Raticiel

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Such skepticism would be identical to Agnosticism, would it not? No matter its views of what the future may bring, right now we don't know, and cannot know. So why bother calling it something different?

Personally I agree with you: there's no need to bother if consequences are practically the same smile
but IF we want to be precise, we have to admit that agnosticism states very clear "we can't", and skepticism doubts both "we can" and "we can't" (epoche and such stuff - in order to not s t a t e anything)

(by the way: I'm not sure if I use a phrase "to state something" in english correctly sweatdrop )

I take agnosticism to mean "we don't know" rather than "we can't know", and that each agnostic tendency or individual has a different reason why "we don't". Looking at it this way means that skepticism is a trend of agnosticism saying "we don't know... yet", in direct contrast to Kantian* agnosticism which says "we don't know... an-sich"


* I want to go back in time and beat the s**t out of Kant. Yes, the Nebular Hypothesis is ******** awesome, but saying "we can know the thing-for-us, but not the thing-in-itself" is just...

BAH!

Before you do it please let me have a cup of tea mit herr Kant, I'd like him to help me write my MA thesis . wink Yes, he was pretty sure that we "don't" and we "can't" and that's why he never called himself skeptical. And despite that we don't know anything about ding an sich, he never questioned objective knowledge about the world - he was a tricky one little philosopher.

I think you're right, it should be "we don't" when it comes to agnosticism, my mistake. rolleyes  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Raticiel

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Raticiel

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Such skepticism would be identical to Agnosticism, would it not? No matter its views of what the future may bring, right now we don't know, and cannot know. So why bother calling it something different?

Personally I agree with you: there's no need to bother if consequences are practically the same smile
but IF we want to be precise, we have to admit that agnosticism states very clear "we can't", and skepticism doubts both "we can" and "we can't" (epoche and such stuff - in order to not s t a t e anything)

(by the way: I'm not sure if I use a phrase "to state something" in english correctly sweatdrop )

I take agnosticism to mean "we don't know" rather than "we can't know", and that each agnostic tendency or individual has a different reason why "we don't". Looking at it this way means that skepticism is a trend of agnosticism saying "we don't know... yet", in direct contrast to Kantian* agnosticism which says "we don't know... an-sich"


* I want to go back in time and beat the s**t out of Kant. Yes, the Nebular Hypothesis is ******** awesome, but saying "we can know the thing-for-us, but not the thing-in-itself" is just...

BAH!

Before you do it please let me have a cup of tea mit herr Kant, I'd like him to help me write my MA thesis . wink Yes, he was pretty sure that we "don't" and we "can't" and that's why he never called himself skeptical. And despite that we don't know anything about ding an sich, he never questioned objective knowledge about the world - he was a tricky one little philosopher.

I think you're right, it should be "we don't" when it comes to agnosticism, my mistake. rolleyes

Right, he merely denied that we could know the world in the abstract...
As if 'the abstract' is anything other than generalisations we make about the world. As if there is a difference between anything an sich and that same thing as we percieve and use it...

/rant
*has festering hatred for Kant*

Anyway, yeah. Materialism and Idealism are the two main trends in philosophy, and religion is by definition idealist. Agnostic philosophy is no different to religious agnosticism because it serves as a pathway from one to the other, and it stuck between the two, forever straining to make something new, but unable because there are only two camps possible.
/2nd rant  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Right, he merely denied that we could know the world in the abstract...
As if 'the abstract' is anything other than generalisations we make about the world. As if there is a difference between anything an sich and that same thing as we percieve and use it...

/rant
*has festering hatred for Kant*

Anyway, yeah. Materialism and Idealism are the two main trends in philosophy, and religion is by definition idealist. Agnostic philosophy is no different to religious agnosticism because it serves as a pathway from one to the other, and it stuck between the two, forever straining to make something new, but unable because there are only two camps possible.
/2nd rant

There is a difference (or I should say: "we don't know if there is a difference"), because what we perceive is what we perceive, it's in our heads (doesn't matter if it's qualia, phaenoumena or any other strange stuff). Ding an sich is that outside something we can't say anything about. Practically there's no difference, and that's why Kant say we shouldn't care about noumena and do what we are supposed to do (take care of our garden peacefully, like Voltaire teaches us). wink