Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Navigator]

Which is why they are different subgroups of the group that's literally titled "not theist," the only defining characteristic of this group being "does not believe in a god or gods."

The reason behind the lack of belief does not matter. The strength of the lack of belief does not matter. The coincidental belief in anything else at all does not matter. That is simply what the word means.

Just for clarity ehcks

Are you saying that the thread title "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial" is just ynot's way of saying "There is no such person as agnostic. They are really all just atheists?"

(jump in here too if you want ynot)

 

[ynot]

Just for clarity ehcks

Are you saying that the thread title "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial" is just ynot's way of saying "There is no such person as agnostic. They are really all just atheists?"

(jump in here too if you want ynot)



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9604[/qimg]

I will, regardless of your invitation. But thanks for it anyway.

Yes. That is exactly what I've been saying many times, and continue to say. They are all really agnostic theists or agnostic atheists (not "atheists" as you said). That you even had to ask the question indicates that you either don't read my posts or you don't read them with comprehension.

I also changed the title to say “Agnostics are Atheists in Denial”. I can’t physically change the title but explained in this thread that the title needed to be changed to represent my argument.

Titles by necessity are usually short. To hopefully make my argument clearer here is a longer title “Agnostics that clam they are neither theists (agnostic theists) nor atheists (agnostic atheists), are atheists (agnostic atheists) in denial”. They aren't theists in denial because theist isn't a default position. You have to choose to be a theist.

 

[Navigator]

“Agnostics that clam they are neither theists (agnostic theists) nor atheists (agnostic atheists), are atheists (agnostic atheists) in denial”. They aren't theists in denial because theist isn't a default position. You have to choose to be a theist.

Well that clears things up a wee bit thanks.

So really the statement in the thread title is that all theists are atheists in denial.

 

[Navigator]

Closer to the Truth

Taking your chart Brian-M - I have circled in blue where belief affects the individual and moves the individual away from the default position.
I have circled in red where the default position has not altered.

As far as knowledge goes, that is very questionable. I think it is just belief in disguise.

As far as belief goes, that is illogical, and is as far removed from the default position as one can get.

The best position is the one you labelled "Weak Agnostic Atheist" and as far as positions go, it is the strongest because it is closest to the default position than any of the rest.

 

[ynot]

Well that clears things up a wee bit thanks.

So really the statement in the thread title is that all theists are atheists in denial.

Another one of your posts that makes my head shake in disbelief.

I will try again . . .

“Agnostics that claim they are neither theists (agnostic theists) nor atheists (agnostic atheists), are atheists (agnostic atheists) in denial" In other words means - Those that claim to be a plain, (without subset) agnostic are atheists in denial. Got that?

My argument is that you can't be a plain agnostic so you have to be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. If you haven't declared that you're an agnostic theist (which a person claiming to be a plain agnostic doesn't do) you're an agnostic atheist by default. Got that?

 

[ehcks]

Just for clarity ehcks

Are you saying that the thread title "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial" is just ynot's way of saying "There is no such person as agnostic. They are really all just atheists?"

(jump in here too if you want ynot)

I do believe that ynot is saying that people who call themselves "agnostic" are actually atheist, and I would agree.

It wasn't that long ago that the term "atheist" was used as little more than an insult, as a way to call out people who weren't a member of the church. For the user, its meaning was the same as "satanist" or "blasphemer." People didn't think you could not believe in a god, they thought people hated their God.

So to avoid the persecution around the word, people called themselves agnostic. Times change, and they don't have to do that anymore.

 

[ynot]

I do believe that ynot is saying that people who call themselves "agnostic" are actually atheist, and I would agree.

It wasn't that long ago that the term "atheist" was used as little more than an insult, as a way to call out people who weren't a member of the church. For the user, its meaning was the same as "satanist" or "blasphemer." People didn't think you could not believe in a god, they thought people hated their God.

So to avoid the persecution around the word, people called themselves agnostic. Times change, and they don't have to do that anymore.

Good contribution, thanks. I have a feeling Navigator will still find a way to twist your words and apply some weird interpretation to them. Perhaps something like - "Aha! What about agnostic theists? They can't be atheists. Gotcha!".

 

[Navigator]

Another one of your posts that makes my head shake in disbelief.

I will try again . . .

“Agnostics that claim they are neither theists (agnostic theists) nor atheists (agnostic atheists), are atheists (agnostic atheists) in denial" In other words means - Those that claim to be a plain, (without subset) agnostic are atheists in denial. Got that?

Nope.

Using Brian-M's chart, are these represented? If so then which category position on Brian-M's charts are the ones you claim are in denial?

My argument is that you can't be a plain agnostic so you have to be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. If you haven't declared that you're an agnostic theist (which a person claiming to be a plain agnostic doesn't do) you're an agnostic atheist by default. Got that?

My guess is that you would say the position Brian-M has called 'Weak Agnostic Atheist' but I am not sure.

It looks that way though...

 

[Navigator]

I do believe that ynot is saying that people who call themselves "agnostic" are actually atheist, and I would agree.

Well if I am correct that Brian-M's 'Weak Agnositc Atheist' is the position that ynot is arguing is in denial, then one can simply drop the 'Weak Agnostic' part and*shazam!*

There is your Atheist.

 

[ynot]

Well if I am correct that Brian-M's 'Weak Agnositc Atheist' is the position that ynot is arguing is in denial, then one can simply drop the 'Weak Agnostic' part and*shazam!*

There is your Atheist.

Well you are totally incorrect (again). My argument has nothing to do with Brian-M’s chart, your chart, or any other chart.

The only subsets my argument has anything to do with are agnostic subsets (agnostic theist and agnostic atheist).

All other subsets of theism and atheism are totally irrelevant to my argument.

A person that claims to be an agnostic (no subsets) is an atheist (all subsets) in denial. Bet you still haven’t got that.

 

[Navigator]

Well you are totally incorrect (again). My argument has nothing to do with Brian-M’s chart, your chart, or any other chart.

The only subsets my argument has anything to do with are agnostic subsets (agnostic theist and agnostic atheist).

All other subsets of theism and atheism are totally irrelevant to my argument.

A person that claims to be an agnostic (no subsets) is an atheist (all subsets) in denial. Bet you still haven’t got that.

You are correct. I don't get it. So are you saying that you don't agree with Brian-M’s chart?

You atheist-wats-its are a confusing bunch.

Why don't you draw a chart and see if that helps get across what you are trying to say?

 

[ynot]

So are you saying that you don't agree with Brian-M’s chart?

Learn to read and comprehend (please) . . .

My argument has nothing to do with Brian-M’s chart, your chart, or any other chart.

 

[ynot]

Belief is chosen, it’s not the default. Lack of belief isn’t chosen, it is the default. To say agnostics can’t choose between something that is chosen and something that isn’t chosen is ridiculous.

 

[ynot]

Why don't you draw a chart and see if that helps get across what you are trying to say?

Just for you buddy. Couldn't be bothered with colour, but I'm sure you will have a box of crayons.

 

[dlorde]

... I tire of being labelled, as much as I tire of others insisting labels upon me.

You atheist-wats-its are a confusing bunch.

Hmm...

 

[Navigator]

Belief is chosen, it’s not the default.

In relation to your belief regarding default position, yes - this would be true.

Lack of belief isn’t chosen, it is the default.

Right so the default position is one of having lack of choice to begin with.

To say agnostics can’t choose between something that is chosen and something that isn’t chosen is ridiculous.

In relation to this default position - 'atheist' that position is not chosen, it is something the atheist had no choice right? That is why you say it is the default position.
Therefore the atheist has to choose to become an agnostic, but you are saying that there is no such choice to be able to be made.
So you are saying that the choice of being an agnostic is silly because being an agnostic is the same thing as being the default position. Being and agnostic is being an atheist already.

Just for you buddy. Couldn't be bothered with colour, but I'm sure you will have a box of crayons.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1243&pictureid=9608[/qimg]

But ynot colors are fun.

Thanks for your chart.

So I have altered your chart changing the word agnostic for the word atheist.

Is this what you are saying?

If it is, then I have made changes to Brian M's chart to reflect what you are saying.
There seems no point in referring to any type agnostic with atheist alongside. Brian M's chart had the title "Strong Agnostic Atheist" so I removed the word agnostic so it now reads "Strong Atheist."

In relation to Gnostic theist and Gnostic atheist, do these exist in your opinion?

Do you think that there is such a thing as an agnostic theist? Your chart shows an agnostic theist with the words "can't know - has belief'.
I was under the impression an agnostic theist didn't have beliefs regarding god(s) existing.

 

[Senex]

Isn't that the Nickel Defense?

Rube Goldberg's Gambit?

 

[ynot]

In relation to your belief regarding default position, yes - this would be true.

No, In relation to all beliefs. Give an example of a single belief that anyone has before they chose to have it.

Right so the default position is one of having lack of choice to begin with.

Man you sure can twist words. Lack of belief is not the same thing as lack of choice. The default position is one of having lack of belief, not lack of choice.

<snipped> rubbish</snipped>

Do you think that there is such a thing as an agnostic theist? Your chart shows an agnostic theist with the words "can't know - has belief'.

I was under the impression an agnostic theist didn't have beliefs knowledge regarding god(s) existing

Well there's your problem then. I fixed it for you.

You either have mental issues or you’re playing silly games. Assuming it’s the later, I’m no longer going to play your silly games.

 

[Navigator]

No, In relation to all beliefs. Give an example of a single belief that anyone has before they chose to have it.

You misunderstand.

If the belief is god(s) related, then the default position can be Atheist.

Well there's your problem then. I fixed it for you.

The Fix: "I was under the impression an agnostic theist didn't have beliefs knowledge regarding god(s) existing."

Well the fix now shows me that just as you say;

"An agnostic atheist is really just an atheist" As such there is no need for the word agnostic before the word atheist.

Therefore;

"An agnostic theist is really just a theist" As such there is no need for the word agnostic before the word theist.

Would you agree, and if not, why not ynot?

Is there a need at all for the word/position 'agnostic'?

 

[ynot]

You misunderstand.

If the belief is god(s) related, then the default position can be Atheist.



The Fix: "I was under the impression an agnostic theist didn't have beliefs knowledge regarding god(s) existing."

Well the fix now shows me that just as you say;

"An agnostic atheist is really just an atheist" As such there is no need for the word agnostic before the word atheist.

Therefore;

"An agnostic theist is really just a theist" As such there is no need for the word agnostic before the word theist.

Would you agree, and if not, why not ynot?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9616[/qimg]

Is there a need at all for the word/position 'agnostic'?

With this post I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not just playing silly games.

The need to define “agnostic theist” and “agnostic atheist” is because we are debating agnosticism. Do you want to debate something without making it part of the debate?

Agnostic can be a subset of either theism or atheism categories. There is no standalone agnostic category. If agnostic is not defined as being agnostic theist, then it is agnostic atheist by default. A person that’s not a theist is an atheist. An agnostic that’s not an agnostic theist is an agnostic atheist. No person is a standalone agnostic.