Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Slowvehicle]

So the complete lack of evidence, reason and scientific method to support the existence of gods isn’t in any way evidence for the lack of gods? Is your conclusion that Santa and The Tooth Fairy aren't actually real based on faith? You seem to be saying that all knowledge (except possibly for abstract systems like math) is based on faith. If so then I think you’re stretching the meaning and application of faith extremely thinly.

This argument makes me wonder if you are reading the other posts in this thread, or just working from a script.

Consider: it is the very lack of any evidence that makes (to the believer) the acceptance of, and dedication to, the existence of 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods') a matter of faith; being steadfast in that faith despite any supporting evidence, even in spite of contrary evidence, is (again, to the believer) the hallmark of devotion, the kind of faith 'god' will reward. It is this that makes believers immune to logical argument (see, for example, the creationist "arguments" against evolution, and the goddidit obdurateness of those who uncritically accept the "history" of the "exodus"). Never overlook the act that, to many beleivers, special pleading about 'god'is "justifiable special pleading".

 

[RoboTimbo]

<sigh>

Agnostic is a term descriptive of knowledge.

Atheism is a term descriptive of faith.

One can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Atheist or Agnostic Atheist.

Anyone not understanding this needs a lesson in linguistics and basic philosophy.

I mean, seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

Buy a dictionary.

And this should have ended the thread.

Agnosticism is a point on the faith scale no more than 'literally' means 'figuratively' despite its popular misusage.

 

[tsig]

Neither of those is a statement of knowledge, they are both statements of belief (or lack thereof).

Then:

Belief in god = non belief in god

Or

Belief = non belief.

Not even close to what I said.

Care to try again?

Then can you explain the hilited?

It reads like you are are saying belief and non belief are the same.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Totally!That's why I label myself as postheist, meaning "what the heck are you all talking about?"

¡Hombreton! Pasa, tio.
Me, I like to throw out "secular rabbinical jesusian" to start arguments when I'm feeling feisty. Otherwise, it's 'devotee of George Carlin's Big Electron.'

"justifiable special pleading"

Pardon if I steal this rich coinage for use on the missus? Thanks ever so much!

 

[RickM]

This argument makes me wonder if you are reading the other posts in this thread, or just working from a script.

Yes, I'm picturing ynot as someone with a maniacal look on his face stirring a big pot.

 

[Brian-M]

Isn't this yet another idea best expressed with Venn diagrams?

Good idea!

Here's a quick and not particularly good attempt (I've kept soft and hard atheism separate for simplicity)...

 

[Slowvehicle]

¡Hombreton! Pasa, tio.
Me, I like to throw out "secular rabbinical jesusian" to start arguments when I'm feeling feisty. Otherwise, it's 'devotee of George Carlin's Big Electron.'


Pardon if I steal this rich coinage for use on the missus? Thanks ever so much!

Yours, with my approbation. File off the serial numbers and claim it as your own!

 

[aleCcowaN]

Otherwise, it's 'devotee of George Carlin's Big Electron.'

Wasn't he Frisbeeterian?

Then can you explain the hilited?

It reads like you are are saying belief and non belief are the same.

That's why I said I found "I don't believe in God" to be both meaningless and as grammatical as Chomskyian colourless green ideas. Anyway it's still a statement of belief. Is the phrase "I don't believe a god exists, existed or will exist" a sound phrase in English?

Consider those phrases to be "the variable belief has a value of 0 in my person". It's yet the variable named belief.

 

[Ornicar]

When asked what is the worse evil between ignorance and indifference, agnostics answer "I neither know nor care".

 

[wollery]

Then can you explain the hilited?



It reads like you are are saying belief and non belief are the same.

They share a common quality in that neither is a statement about knowledge.

Try reading the post I was originally replying to for context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ynot]

I’ve freely admitted that I made a hash with the OP of this thread so will try once again to “clean it up” . . .

New Title - Agnostics are Atheists in Denial

New OP . . .

I use the term agnostic in the popular sense of the term in which an agnostic is defined as being someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a god or gods. The reason given for this indecisive position is that the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable.

I use the term atheist in the popular sense of the term in which an atheist is defined as being someone who doesn’t have a belief in a god or gods. Although I use this definition I don’t particularly like it as I think atheism should have some connection with theism (I don’t like describing a baby as being an atheist). I prefer to define an atheist as being someone who doesn’t accept and agree with the unsubstantiated claims made by the beliefs of theism. In my opinion atheism is a reaction to theism. For the purposes of this thread however, it doesn’t matter which of these definitions is used.

The reason I contend that “Agnostics are Atheists in Denial” is because (as with atheists) they don’t have a belief in a god or gods. That they don’t have a disbelief either is irrelevant. Also (as with atheists) their declared requirement is to have knowledge of a god or gods rather than mere belief (the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable). That they “can’t decide” means they haven’t and don’t accept and agree with the unsubstantiated claims made by the beliefs of theism (as with atheists). That they don’t reject or disagree either is irrelevant. Not being a theist makes you an atheist by default.

I don’t have time to continue at present but I hope this helps to clarify my contention, regardless that you may not agree with it.

 

[psionl0]

........................

I use the term agnostic in the popular sense of the term in which an agnostic is defined as being someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a god or gods.
...........................

I use the term atheist in the popular sense of the term in which an atheist is defined as being someone who doesn’t have a belief in a god or gods.
.........................

If you contend that atheism means "lack of belief" rather than "disbelief" then all you are saying is that you believe that agnosticism and atheism are synonyms.

 

[ynot]

If you contend that atheism means "lack of belief" rather than "disbelief" then all you are saying is that you believe that agnosticism and atheism are synonyms.

Agnosticism is broader than agnostic. There can be agnostic theists and atheists.

Agnostic, as in - I can’t decide to be a theist because I don’t accept mere beliefs and I require knowledge of a god or gods, is obviously a synonym for atheist.

 

[Jango]

I'm well aware of the Knowledge/Belief difference, I even have a handy chart.

http://i1.wp.com/2.bp.blogspot.com/_MDZPs8ROJXE/TNx7UFqbaII/AAAAAAAAB9M/XDfxPwyBVpA/s1600/Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png

What the op is saying is that people who label themselves agnostic are also by proxy atheists.

From a religious standpoint, yes, that is correct. With religion, 'Yes' is the only acceptable answer, as anything other than an immediate heartfelt 'Yes' means doubt and doubt means lack of faith therefore not a believer sometimes or at all.

What's funny is that in the long-term, many atheists of man-made religions will become theists in a religion discovered by astrophysics. Shortly thereafter, when robotics become next generation, another crop of religions will pop up as a result, both man-made and naturally created.

 

[ynot]

This argument makes me wonder if you are reading the other posts in this thread, or just working from a script.

Consider: it is the very lack of any evidence that makes (to the believer) the acceptance of, and dedication to, the existence of 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods') a matter of faith; being steadfast in that faith despite any supporting evidence, even in spite of contrary evidence, is (again, to the believer) the hallmark of devotion, the kind of faith 'god' will reward. It is this that makes believers immune to logical argument (see, for example, the creationist "arguments" against evolution, and the goddidit obdurateness of those who uncritically accept the "history" of the "exodus"). Never overlook the act that, to many beleivers, special pleading about 'god'is "justifiable special pleading".

I already knew all that and agree with it completely. Unfortunately however it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. You are talking about belief/faith as it applies to theists. I'm talking about belief/faith as it applies to atheists that believe there is no gods.

What I was attempting to point out is that such atheists have more than mere belief/faith to reasonably and justifiably believe there are no gods. In short, that complete lack of evidence, reason and scientific possibility for gods, is reasonable and justifiable reason to believe in complete lack of gods. A bit more to it than mere belief/faith.

This is from the particular post I was responding to (bolding mine) . . .

An atheist might believe there is no God (faith)

 

[Slowvehicle]

I already knew all that and agree with it completely. Unfortunately however it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. You are talking about belief/faith as it applies to theists. I'm talking about belief/faith as it applies to atheists that believe there is no gods.

What I was attempting to point out is that such atheists have more than mere belief/faith to reasonably and justifiably believe there are no gods. In short, that complete lack of evidence, reason and scientific possibility for gods, is reasonable and justifiable reason to believe in complete lack of gods. A bit more to it than mere belief/faith.

This is from the particular post I was responding to (bolding mine) . . .

As long as you continue to misstate this, you are going to keep blaming the dog on the piddle, rather than the right way 'round. You are, of course, welcome to your belief; just don't pretend you are better than I am at describing my own lack of belief...

 

[cullennz]

Simplistic but I thought it was "Is there god"

Atheist " No" (me)

Agnostic "Don't know, but don't really care"

 

[ynot]

As long as you continue to misstate this, you are going to keep blaming the dog on the piddle, rather than the right way 'round. You are, of course, welcome to your belief; just don't pretend you are better than I am at describing my own lack of belief...

What an incredulous and unnecessarily personalised response.

Why do you assume my posts are in any way personal and directed toward yourself in particular? What have I said that indicates I’m trying to pretend I’m better than you at describing your lack of belief? What have I said that refers to you in any way at all?

I’m not saying YOU believe in a complete lack of gods. In fact I don’t even use that description as a preferred definition of an atheist.

I use the term atheist in the popular sense of the term in which an atheist is defined as being someone who doesn’t have a belief in a god or gods. Although I use this definition I don’t particularly like it as I think atheism should have some connection with theism (I don’t like describing a baby as being an atheist). I prefer to define an atheist as being someone who doesn’t accept and agree with the unsubstantiated claims made by the beliefs of theism. In my opinion atheism is a reaction to theism. For the purposes of this thread however, it doesn’t matter which of these definitions is used.

Are you prepared to explain your response in more detail? Or are you happy to just piss on me and leave it?

 

[Dragoonster]

I use the term atheist in the popular sense of the term in which an atheist is defined as being someone who doesn’t have a belief in a god or gods. Although I use this definition I don’t particularly like it as I think atheism should have some connection with theism (I don’t like describing a baby as being an atheist).

The word "atheist" doesn't give a hang about your personal preferences. A baby is indeed an atheist. This is obvious.

And "popular sense"? The word atheist is very simple. It's "dictionary sense" simple. You are trying to make it into something else for some bizarre reason.

And "as I think atheism should have some connection with theism"??? Is this in dispute? You seem to basically want to rewrite dictionaries based on your own really weird additions to what a very simple and perfectly explanatory word means. Good luck with that.

 

[Meadmaker]

The word "atheist" doesn't give a hang about your personal preferences. A baby is indeed an atheist. This is obvious.

Well you had best inform the dictionaries about this, because different dictionaries have different definitions, and many have multiple definitions, and only some of those definitions apply to babies.