Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[wollery]

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.

It wasn't personalised.

You seem to think that redefining agnostic to mean atheist so that you can tell everyone that agnostics are atheists is some sort of valid argument.

It isn't.

People tend to take umbrage when someone who doesn't share their personal belief redefines a word that's used to describe their belief in order to show that their stated belief is something other than it is. Which is pretty much what you're doing.

Just look at how you've had to tortuously reword your OP after the objections raised by others, until your statement now says little more than "atheism is atheism".

And yet you still want to argue the toss over how to define agnosticism, despite having pretty much retreated into a place where the use of the word in your statement is all but redundant.

 

[RickM]

It wasn't personalised.

You seem to think that redefining agnostic to mean atheist so that you can tell everyone that agnostics are atheists is some sort of valid argument.

It isn't.

People tend to take umbrage when someone who doesn't share their personal belief redefines a word that's used to describe their belief in order to show that their stated belief is something other than it is. Which is pretty much what you're doing.

Just look at how you've had to tortuously reword your OP after the objections raised by others, until your statement now says little more than "atheism is atheism".

And yet you still want to argue the toss over how to define agnosticism, despite having pretty much retreated into a place where the use of the word in your statement is all but redundant.

Well said!

Should I take down the decorations, because I think this party is almost over?

 

[Slowvehicle]

It wasn't personalised.

You seem to think that redefining agnostic to mean atheist so that you can tell everyone that agnostics are atheists is some sort of valid argument.

It isn't.

People tend to take umbrage when someone who doesn't share their personal belief redefines a word that's used to describe their belief in order to show that their stated belief is something other than it is. Which is pretty much what you're doing.

Just look at how you've had to tortuously reword your OP after the objections raised by others, until your statement now says little more than "atheism is atheism".

And yet you still want to argue the toss over how to define agnosticism, despite having pretty much retreated into a place where the use of the word in your statement is all but redundant.

Well said!

 

[aleCcowaN]

As a conclusion, I think it is safe to say that, in America, Agnostics can be whatever they want.

 

[ynot]

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.

Then please help me out. Please educate me. Please provide this "dictionary sense" simple definition of the word atheist that makes it obvious that babies are atheists. No cheery-picking now. (I have a feeling you will merely ignore this polite request)

 

[ynot]

As a conclusion, I think it is safe to say that, in America, Agnostics can be whatever they want.

Is that your last post in this thread then?

America - “The land of the free” where people can be what they want. (yeah right).

So “agnostic” means “Be what you want to be”? And I thought it means something like “Can’t decide what to be”.

 

[wollery]

Then please help me out. Please educate me. Please provide this "dictionary sense" simple definition of the word atheist that makes it obvious that babies are atheists. No cheery-picking now. (I have a feeling you will merely ignore this polite request)

Atheist means "someone who does not believe in god or gods".

Since babies have no concept of god they cannot, by definition, have a belief in one.

If you really can't understand this simple point then you have my deepest sympathy.

<snip>

And I thought it means something like “Can’t decide what to be”.

And that is why you fail.

You've been told several times what it actually means, but since that doesn't fit with your preconceptions and biases you just dismiss and forget it in favour of the definition that you like, even though your definition renders the word meaningless (or at the very least pointless).

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's fascinating to see how many atheists insist on conjuring the etymological fallacy.

 

[ynot]

Atheist means "someone who does not believe in god or gods".

Since babies have no concept of god they cannot, by definition, have a belief in one.

If you really can't understand this simple point then you have my deepest sympathy.

What about these dictionary definitions of “atheist”?

“A person who believes that no god or gods exist”

“A person who denies or rejects that a god or gods exist”

Don’t see how these definitions can apply to a baby.

Wouldn’t be cheery-picking would you?

 

[stevea]

Let me suggest some definitions (and it's open for comment and revision);

Assert - willingness of the subject to make the claim w/o duress.
Positive atheism - assertion that no deities exist.
Theism - assertion that one or more dieties exist.
Knowledge - an assertion based on repeatable verifiable observational evidence. [yes this is a restricte definition]
Belief - an assertion made without reference to repeatable verifiable observational evidence.

I think the concept of knowledge doesn't apply to this issue. There can be no repeatable testable evidence in favor of anything supernatural. Moses might believe b/c he saw (personal evidence) of a burning non-consumed bush, but unless he can repeat that under test conditions - it falls short of the modern concept of evidence and becomes hearsay. OTOH If he could reproduce it on demand, then we would modify chemistry and physics to account for this new physical phenomena, and we would cease to consider it supernatural. IMO there can be no reliable evidence in favor of anything "supernatural", including dieties. Further is appears there is no possibility of evidence refuting the supernatural generally. There is always room to hide a pan-dimensional, time controlling deity out of sight.

I will not torture the terminology by claiming everyone is an agnostic, since clearly no one has knowledge. That may be true but doesn't help in any categorization.
====

Theists "the religious" are of course believers; willing to make theistic assertions w/o respect to evidence. This is the "faith" thing at play; they've chosen to support an assertion despite lack of evidence. It's some sort of non-evidence based thinking and not irrationality at work I think.

The positive atheists are oddly also believers since they are wiling be make assertions that no deities exist, despite the total absence of evidence. I can't say how they justify this position, except to say it is irrational and/or not evidence based thinking.

There is a lot of wiggle room between my definitions of theist and positive-atheist.

For example I refuse to make an assertion either way, precisely b/c there is no evidence on this issue; further any assertion has zero impact on my life so there is no need. It's a bit like the question of whether there is a teapot orbiting Saturn - it really won't matter nor will evidence be available until I need to make tea in the vicinity of Saturn.

==

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?

I think you intended irony, but that statement is logically correct. Lack of evidence for existence of X does not suggest that X does not exist. I can't imagine any way to create a evidenced based test for the lack of a deity.

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.

Math & pure logic are the only domains where the concept of proof applies.

There are massive and well addressed issues in epistemology wrt evidence for anything in the "real world", anything we obtain from our senses. The scientific method is one very successful means of building a MODEL of the world we observe, but it's wrong-headed to suggest that the model IS the real-world, or that it ever represents TRUTH or certainty in the way the math does, or that the scientific method is the only means to attain such understanding. So all we can know about the real world is imprecise, observational, and not necessarily repeatable or extrapolate to other conditions (like future time).

Why is this a problem? Why do people get upset? Do these words "atheist" or "agnostic" mean something else? Are they ingrained with some other purpose? If so maybe that's the problem.

Probably that's part of it. I fully understand why "classical agnostics"(non-theist, non-p.atheist) do not want to be lumped together with positive-atheists. There is a fundamental difference in epistemology. I believe theists and positive-atheists may be more similar than different wrt epistemology.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is that your last post in this thread then?

America - “The land of the free” where people can be what they want. (yeah right).

So “agnostic” means “Be what you want to be”? And I thought it means something like “Can’t Needn't decide what to be”.

Corrected for you.

It's funny how most active, belligerent or name-calling self-pegged Atheists I've met here -banned or not- aren't indeed Atheists but Antitheists.

They aren't Atheists while they're alone; they remember to be Atheists when they meet other Atheists to pat each other's back, and they become enraged in front of most acts of Theism, some of them in front of rituals, all of them when some sort of philosophic approach is being discussed.

These Antitheists believe that any notion of divinity and most of spirituality must be eradicated. The same way certain so-called Christians believe to earn a place in an imaginary place called heaven by ringing doorbells and preaching, these self-called Atheists feel compelled to burst any theistic balloon anyone may be holding. And better if by doing it they turn the balloon owner smiles into grimaces.

These kind of false Atheists also get pleasure of scorning Agnostics as lukewarm and indecisive. The kind of power play that really is driving their actions, because, I assure you, they are believers: believers of the worst possible kind.

So, ynot, where in here can I check if you are a real Atheist?

 

[ynot]

And that is why you fail.

You've been told several times what it actually means, but since that doesn't fit with your preconceptions and biases you just dismiss and forget it in favour of the definition that you like, even though your definition renders the word meaningless (or at the very least pointless).

The academic owl appears to have no sense of humour.

 

[wollery]

What about these dictionary definitions of “atheist”?

“A person who believes that no god or gods exist”

“A person who denies or rejects that a god or gods exist”

Don’t see how these definitions can apply to a baby.

Wouldn’t be cheery-picking would you?

Aren't you cherry-picking by choosing those definitions?

The word derives from the Greek άθεος, which means, literally, godless.

The two definitions that you have picked would commonly apply to the hard atheist viewpoint. Of course, there's a spectrum of atheist beliefs. If you want to only choose dictionary definitions that present one small section of that spectrum then you are cherry-picking.

The whole argument (on both sides) comes down to semantics. But the point is that in order to make your OP argument you've had to alter the definition of agnostic to the stage that it might as well be left out of the argument entirely. Your argument is a tautology, and you have admitted as much.

I get the feeling that you're only continuing because you like arguing the toss, even when it's pointless.

 

[wollery]

The academic owl appears to have no sense of humour.

The perpetual motion machine appears not to understand the use of smilies.

 

[ynot]

<snipped> because it obviously doesn't apply to me </snipped>

So, ynot, where in here can I check if you are a real Atheist?

Well . . . I don’t have a belief in a god or gods and never have. I don’t accept claims based purely on beliefs that such creatures actually exist. I see no credible evidence such creatures do exist, no credible reason why they should exist, no scientific method by which they could exist, and no credible reason to assume they might exist. I can’t absolutely conclude gods don’t exist of course. Same thing goes for Santa and The Tooth Fairy etc.

Do I pass your “true atheist” test?

 

[ynot]

Aren't you cherry-picking by choosing those definitions?

No. I’m pointing out that other definitions are available and often used. For this thread I cherry-picked the same definition you cherry-picked <<<<<<

 

[ynot]

I get the feeling that you're only continuing because you like arguing the toss, even when it's pointless.

I must have missed the bit where the bell rang and you were declared the winner. (haven't been on this or any forum for some time and forgot you can use these little dudes)

 

[wollery]

So, we're in complete agreement, on pretty much everything, except that for some unknown reason you dislike the term agnostic, even though it clearly applies to you (assuming my definition of agnostic).

 

[wollery]

I must have missed the bit where the bell rang and you were declared the winner. (haven't been on this or any forum for some time and forgot you can use these little dudes)

I never said I won, just that the argument is pointless.

 

[ynot]

I never said I won, just that the argument is pointless.

Even though I might be losing I might also be learning. Don’t think that’s pointless.

To be proven wrong is to receive the gift of knowledge.