Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Navigator]

In that diagram, what exactly is the difference between "lacking belief" and "without beliefs"?

Nothing. There is no difference.
I simply said "Without beliefs" as a description of Blank Slate. (The default position).
I put "lacking beliefs to do with god(s) existing or not existing." as a description of Agnostic (which I have since changed to Agnosticism.)

And why have you listed "Believes god(s) exist" and "Believes god(s) do not exist" as subsets of "Without Beliefs"? That doesn't make any sense.

They are not subsets. It make perfect sense.

They are descriptions of the positions. The Blank Slate description say's 'Without beliefs' and the beliefs come about through the evolution of the individual human consciousness as it moves away from the position of the default, (Blank Slate) and makes choices in relation to the options which are presented through personal experience etc.

I altered the diagram in order to help clarify.

The diagram shows that Agnosticism is closer to the default (Blank Slate) than either Atheism or Theism.

 

[Navigator]

Did you mean to quote anther post? Your post has no relation to mine that I can make out.

So a theist is a position not a person? (still rubbish)

Not so much 'rubbish' as an honest mistake which anyone who read this post would have been able to understand.
I have since fixed the mistake which should clarify things..
I apologize for any confusion.

What about the position of a theist that merely believes with faith and admits there is no evidence. What argument is this position making.

If the person identifies with Theism, then that person will be in a subset of theism.
I have not bothered to name any subsets related to each of the three descriptions.
I have just shown how they are separate, and therefore how.

1: 'Atheist' cannot be regarded as the default position of a human being
2: Agnosticism is NOT Atheism in denial. Agnosticism is separate from Atheism.

 

[psionl0]

If you are unable to form a belief, then you don't have a belief. Because you didn't form one. Therefore you are an atheist.

I like Navigator's dictionary better. His definitions are more in line with common usage.

 

[Brian-M]

I altered the diagram in order to help clarify.

The diagram shows that Agnosticism is closer to the default (Blank Slate) than either Atheism or Theism.

Your diagram looks like a hierarchy/organisation chart, but if that's what you intended it doesn't make sense. You've got both atheism and theism as a subset of "blank slate".

Maybe you meant it as something more akin to a flow chart?

As an example, I've made up a flow chart of how I see the situation:

(I could have added more options for changing from one belief to another, but I thought I'd keep it simple.)

Hint: Instead of uploading the picture as an attachment, upload it into "Pictures & Albums" from the "User CP" menu. When you view the image in the album, it gives you the code to copy-paste into your post for a full-size image wherever you want to put it. Like I just did with the flow-chart above.

 

[Navigator]

Hint: Instead of uploading the picture as an attachment, upload it into "Pictures & Albums" from the "User CP" menu. When you view the image in the album, it gives you the code to copy-paste into your post for a full-size image wherever you want to put it. Like I just did with the flow-chart above.

I have tried that in the recent past and being told that the picture I had been trying to display was not being seen by the other members.
(The post I tried this with is this one - can you see the image?)


Regarding the flow-chart (nicely done btw) Your default position description of 'Ignorant Atheist' is not necessary. It does show how you think things are but you are forcing the word 'atheist' to be aligned with the Blank Slate, whereas I simple described the position as 'Without Beliefs' (atheists have beliefs).
I could have described the position as 'Ignorant of everything' but wanting to focus on the aspect of beliefs.
You also add as a sub description "Lacks concept of God" which is also unnecessary.
Blank slate lacks everything to do with knowledge, belief, and language. That is why the default position cannot be 'Atheist' because atheists don't lack such things.
That is why people evolve into various positions from the default position, and one of those positions some evolve into are subsets of 'Atheism'.

Your diagram looks like a hierarchy/organisation chart, but if that's what you intended it doesn't make sense. You've got both atheism and theism as a subset of "blank slate".

Yes. This is because my charts acknowledges that all things come from the blank slate position and evolve from that position. Theism and theists also evolve from the blank slate position.
What doesn't make sense is that your chart doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Theism.
It also implies that agnostics believe things regarding the existence of god(s). My understanding is that they have no belief either way.

Maybe you meant it as something more akin to a flow chart?

Nope.

A flow chart offers the option of circling back, as you show in your chart.

'Informed about god" on my chart is represented by the words '"human consciousness evolving into different sets" and those sets are Theism, Agnosticism and Atheism.

Your chart implies that until one is informed about God, one goes back to the state of Blank Slate.

My chart represents the natural flow of the evolution of human consciousness from the default position of Blank Slate.

 

[ynot]

It all begins with an unsubstantiated claim that a god or gods exist . . .

Theist/preacher – Claims god(s) exist.

Baby/child – Too young to understand and decide. Isn’t an atheist if defined as rejects the claim. Is an atheist if defined as has no belief in god(s)

Theist – Accepts the claim and has a belief in god(s).

Atheist – Doesn’t accept the claim and has no believe in god(s)

Agnostic theist – Accepts the claim regardless of the lack of knowledge and has a belief in god(s).

Agnostic atheist - Doesn’t accept the claim and requires knowledge rather than belief. Has no belief in god(s).

Agnostic – Doesn’t exist.

 

[Navigator]

It all begins with an unsubstantiated claim that a god or gods exist . . .

This is where you are mistaken ynot.

It does not all begin with a theist proclamation.
It all begins with the first spark of human consciousness.

Theist/preacher – Claims god(s) exist.

The horse before the cart.

This forgets (leaves out) the very fact that for the theist to proclaim anything, the theist has to evolve from the default position, which in every case is that of Blank Slate.

Baby/child – Too young to understand and decide. Isn’t an atheist if defined as rejects the claim. Is an atheist if defined as has no belief in god(s)

New born = Blank Slate
Child = Too young to understand and decide
Atheist = Old enough to understand and decide.
Theist = Old enough to understand and decide.
Agnostic = Old enough to understand and decide.

An individual is a weak atheist if the individual rejects the claim.
An individual is a strong atheist if the individual rejects the claim and argues against the claim.

An atheist defined as having no belief in god(s) can be weak or strong. (subsets)
An atheist defined as actively arguing against belief in and existence of god(s) is strong. (subset)

Theist (subset of Theism) Accepts the claim of Theism and has a belief in god(s).
Weak theists (subset of Theism) don't argue for the claim.
Strong theists (subset of Theism) do argue for the claim.
All atheists believe that god(s) do not exist.

Atheist (subset of Atheism)– Doesn’t accept the claim of Theism and has no belief in god(s) and also believes god(s) do not exist.
Weak atheists (subset of Atheism) don't argue against the claim
Strong atheists (subset of Atheism) do argue against the claim

Agnostic theist – Accepts the claim regardless of the lack of knowledge and has a belief in god(s).

In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic theist"

Weak theists = Accept the claim regardless of the lack of knowledge and have a belief in god(s).
Strong theists = Accept the claim regardless of the lack of knowledge, have a belief in god(s) and argues those beliefs.


In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic atheist "

Agnostic – Doesn’t exist.

Incorrect.


Agnostic (subset of Agnosticism) = Doesn’t accept the claim and requires knowledge rather than belief. Has no belief in the existence of god(s). Has no belief in the non existence of god(s).

 

[tsig]

Nothing. There is no difference.
I simply said "Without beliefs" as a description of Blank Slate. (The default position).
I put "lacking beliefs to do with god(s) existing or not existing." as a description of Agnostic (which I have since changed to Agnosticism.)





They are not subsets. It make perfect sense.

They are descriptions of the positions. The Blank Slate description say's 'Without beliefs' and the beliefs come about through the evolution of the individual human consciousness as it moves away from the position of the default, (Blank Slate) and makes choices in relation to the options which are presented through personal experience etc.

I altered the diagram in order to help clarify.

The diagram shows that Agnosticism is closer to the default (Blank Slate) than either Atheism or Theism.

Argumentum ad Diagramum?

 

[tsig]

Your diagram looks like a hierarchy/organisation chart, but if that's what you intended it doesn't make sense. You've got both atheism and theism as a subset of "blank slate".

Maybe you meant it as something more akin to a flow chart?

As an example, I've made up a flow chart of how I see the situation:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=721&pictureid=9597[/qimg]

(I could have added more options for changing from one belief to another, but I thought I'd keep it simple.)

Hint: Instead of uploading the picture as an attachment, upload it into "Pictures & Albums" from the "User CP" menu. When you view the image in the album, it gives you the code to copy-paste into your post for a full-size image wherever you want to put it. Like I just did with the flow-chart above.

Isn't that the Nickel Defense?

Rube Goldberg's Gambit?

 

[ynot]

This is where you are mistaken ynot.
It does not all begin with a theist proclamation.It all begins with the first spark of human consciousness.
The horse before the cart.
This forgets (leaves out) the very fact that for the theist to proclaim anything, the theist has to evolve from the default position, which in every case is that of Blank Slate.

I’m talking about when theism and atheism begin. You can talk about when life and human consciousness begins if you like, but I don’t see that’s relevant to the debate.

New born = Blank Slate
Child = Too young to understand and decide
Atheist = Old enough to understand and decide.
Theist = Old enough to understand and decide.
Agnostic = Old enough to understand and decide.
An individual is a weak atheist if the individual rejects the claim.
An individual is a strong atheist if the individual rejects the claim and argues against the claim.
An atheist defined as having no belief in god(s) can be weak or strong. (subsets)
An atheist defined as actively arguing against belief in and existence of god(s) is strong. (subset)
Theist (subset of Theism) Accepts the claim of Theism and has a belief in god(s).
Weak theists (subset of Theism) don't argue for the claim.
Strong theists (subset of Theism) do argue for the claim.

Think all that’s close enough for me to agree.

All atheists believe that god(s) do not exist.
Atheist (subset of Atheism)– Doesn’t accept the claim of Theism and has no belief in god(s) and also OR believes god(s) do not exist.

Hilited your mistakes

Weak atheists (subset of Atheism) don't argue against the claim
Strong atheists (subset of Atheism) do argue against the claim

Okay

In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic theist"
Weak theists = Accept the claim regardless of the lack of knowledge and have a belief in god(s).
Strong theists = Accept the claim regardless of the lack of knowledge, have a belief in god(s) and argues those beliefs.

They would be agnostic theists. You had it right the first time . . .

Weak theists (subset of Theism) don't argue for the claim.
Strong theists (subset of Theism) do argue for the claim.

Okay

In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic atheist "

Agnostic atheist = "Doesn’t accept the claim and requires knowledge rather than belief. Has no belief in the existence of god(s). Has no belief in the non existence of god(s)".

Incorrect.
Agnostic (subset of Agnosticism) = Doesn’t accept the claim and requires knowledge rather than belief. Has no belief in the existence of god(s). Has no belief in the non existence of god(s).

By your own definition of atheist (above) this person is an agnostic atheist.

 

[RickM]

It all begins with an unsubstantiated claim that a god or gods exist . . .

Agnostic – Doesn’t exist.

The below paragraph is taken from Robert Flint’s book, Agnosticism. Note the highlight where he infers there exist a category of agnostic that can stand alone. Don’t forget, he is the one first credited for the term agnostic-atheism. What do you conclude he is referring to here?

“The result of an atheist calling himself an agnostic almost inevitably is that other people call him an agnostic atheist, and so he has two hard names thrown at him instead of one. As to the wish, most certainly a man who is merely an agnostic is entitled to protest against the injustice of being spoken of as an atheist. On the other hand, if a man be really an atheist in the ordinary meaning of the term, he has no right to claim to be regarded merely an agnostic, and by doing so he necessarily spreads and confirms the very error against which he protests---the confusion of agnosticism with atheism.”

 

[ynot]

The below paragraph is taken from Robert Flint’s book, Agnosticism. Note the highlight where he infers there exist a category of agnostic that can stand alone. Don’t forget, he is the one first credited for the term agnostic-atheism. What do you conclude he is referring to here?

“The result of an atheist calling himself an agnostic almost inevitably is that other people call him an agnostic atheist, and so he has two hard names thrown at him instead of one. As to the wish, most certainly a man who is merely an agnostic is entitled to protest against the injustice of being spoken of as an atheist. On the other hand, if a man be really an atheist in the ordinary meaning of the term, he has no right to claim to be regarded merely an agnostic, and by doing so he necessarily spreads and confirms the very error against which he protests---the confusion of agnosticism with atheism.”

Did you miss the bit I bolded? if you're not an agnostic theist you be "really be" an agnostic atheist by default.

 

[ynot]

Agnosticism is about being unable to know, it's not about being unable to choose to believe. Knowledge isn't a choice as belief is.

The only thing an agnostic atheist can be indecisive about is whether or not to become an agnostic theist.

If existence of god(s) were ever known the terms “theist” and “atheist” would become moot.

 

[RickM]

Did you miss the bit I bolded? if you're not an agnostic theist you be "really be" an agnostic atheist by default.

Have you answered my question or is this another case of selective vision?

I don't see the word "theist" anywhere in that sentence, so, once again, what do you conclude Flint is referring to here?

 

[Brian-M]

I have tried that in the recent past and being told that the picture I had been trying to display was not being seen by the other members.
(The post I tried this with is this one - can you see the image?)

Are you sure you linked to the right picture?

I don't see any picture in the post, I did click the quote button and copy-paste the image URL into the address bar so I could download it.

No wonder nobody can see that picture, it's a GIF file which contains nothing but a single transparent pixel!

Regarding the flow-chart (nicely done btw) Your default position description of 'Ignorant Atheist' is not necessary. It does show how you think things are but you are forcing the word 'atheist' to be aligned with the Blank Slate, whereas I simple described the position as 'Without Beliefs' (atheists have beliefs).

That goes back to how I was defining atheist earlier, as the word "theist" with the prefix "a-" attached.

Look at some other words which share the same prefix:

apolitical = not political
amoral = not moral
asexual = not sexual
asymmetric = not symmetric
atypical = not typical​

Surely it follows that atheist = not theist

Since theists are people who have belief that a god exists, this would mean that anyone who doesn't have a belief that a god exists is an atheist.

That's why the soft and hard (or weak and strong) distinctions exist. The soft (or weak) position indicates that no belief that a god exists, while the hard (or strong) position indicates a belief that no god exists.

Because the "blank slate" has no belief that a god exists, that clearly puts them in the soft/weak atheist category.

(I assumed that you meant the "blank slate" to simply refer to their religious beliefs, but from what you've said elsewhere in this post it's clear I was mistaken. But either way, my point still stands.)

You also add as a sub description "Lacks concept of God" which is also unnecessary.

But accurate. I added sub-descriptions to everything for clarity.

Blank slate lacks everything to do with knowledge, belief, and language. That is why the default position cannot be 'Atheist' because atheists don't lack such things.

If the soft atheist position is simply a lack of belief in a god, why wouldn't such a person count as a soft atheist?

This is because my charts acknowledges that all things come from the blank slate position and evolve from that position.

That may be how you intended it, but the way you've laid it out makes it look like everything below falls under the category of being a blank slate, which is clearly nonsensical.

Maybe to fix it you need to remove the lines joining the boxes, and draw three arrows from the "blank slate" box pointing at the three boxes below.

What doesn't make sense is that your chart doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Theism.

Yes it does. Take a look at the middle row of boxes. The box on the left is theist, and so is the box on the right.

There's only six boxes on the chart, so I don't understand how you could have missed them.

It also implies that agnostics believe things regarding the existence of god(s). My understanding is that they have no belief either way.

Agnosticism is the state of not knowing whether or not a god exist. It's theism and atheism that are about belief.

Knowledge and belief are different things.

From your response to Ynot:

In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic theist"

[...]

In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic atheist "

[...]

Agnostic (subset of Agnosticism) = Doesn’t accept the claim and requires knowledge rather than belief. Has no belief in the existence of god(s). Has no belief in the non existence of god(s).

First, we don't agree with your definition of agnostic. Of course, there are various conflicting definitions, but there's a good explanation of agnosticism here: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm

But simply, "agnostic" comes from attaching the prefix "a-" (meaning "not" or "without") to "gnostic" (meaning "knowing" or "knowledgeable").

We take it to mean only that a person doesn't claim to know whether or not god exists. Whether or not the person believes that a god does or doesn't exist is an entirely different question.

As for claiming that there are no agnostic theists, I've just found a thread on beliefnet that's full of them: http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43861/13952817/Christian_agnosticism

Agnostic theists are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone.

(And I see that this is another post where you've inserted a single-pixel invisible image. Do you see the image in the post? Maybe there's something wrong with the image file itself? ETA: No, I see that they're linking to different picture numbers. Is the album they're in private? Go to the album, click on "Edit Album" and see whether the "Album Type" is set to public or private.)

 

[Navigator]

I’m talking about when theism and atheism begin. You can talk about when life and human consciousness begins if you like, but I don’t see that’s relevant to the debate.


Think all that’s close enough for me to agree.


Hilited your mistakes

But did not explain why you think they are mistakes...duly noted...

They would be agnostic theists.

Nope. They are strong and weak atheists.
In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic theist"

Agnostic atheist = "Doesn’t accept the claim and requires knowledge rather than belief. Has no belief in the existence of god(s). Has no belief in the non existence of god(s)".

In reality there is no such thing as an "Agnostic atheist "

By your own definition of atheist (above) this person is an agnostic atheist.

By my own definition of atheist, Agnosticism is its own set. Not a subset of Atheism.

You are still ignoring the fact that you are ignoring reality.
Your strong atheist belief structures are the cause of this.

 

[Navigator]

Agnosticism is about being unable to know, it's not about being unable to choose to believe. Knowledge isn't a choice as belief is.

The only thing an agnostic atheist can be indecisive about is whether or not to become an agnostic theist.

If existence of god(s) were ever known the terms “theist” and “atheist” would become moot.

How do you figure that?

 

[ynot]

Have you answered my question or is this another case of selective vision?

No more selective than your vision

I don't see the word "theist" anywhere in that sentence, so, once again, what do you conclude Flint is referring to here?

Obviously I don't agree with Flint's claim that a man can be merely an agnostic. If you had read my posts you would already know that. I don't accept things just because other people say them.

 

[ynot]

First, we don't agree with your definition of agnostic. Of course, there are various conflicting definitions, but there's a good explanation of agnosticism here: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm

"So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism."

This quote from the above link explains things clearly as it needs to be . . . . . .

"Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic."

 

[RickM]

No more selective than your vision


Obviously I don't agree with Flint's claim that a man can be merely an agnostic. If you had read my posts you would already know that. I don't accept things just because other people say them.

Don't feel bad, there's a lot more learned people out there that agree with your position (including Flint) than mine and Navigator's. We're putting up a good fight though.