Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Navigator]

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.

To be clear ynot, you have established that there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

I am asking if you think there is such a thing as an agnostic theist - and more to the point, should the person simply be called a theist, not an agnostic theist?

In other words, just as agnostic doesn't need to be a subset of atheism, it also doesn't need to be a subset of theism.

you say "An agnostic that’s not an agnostic theist is an agnostic atheist."

But you also say that an agnostic atheist is really just an atheist (one doesn't need to have the word 'agnostic' associated with it) as your chart says... an 'agnostic atheist' already is an atheist.

Therefore, is an agnostic theist already a theist?

Or:

Was this whole thread created originally because some folk were saying that being an agnostic is a position in its own right rather than a subset of atheism and theism and you disagreed with them?

 

[ynot]

To be clear ynot, you have established that there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

I am asking if you think there is such a thing as an agnostic theist - and more to the point, should the person simply be called a theist, not an agnostic theist?

In other words, just as agnostic doesn't need to be a subset of atheism, it also doesn't need to be a subset of theism.

you say "An agnostic that’s not an agnostic theist is an agnostic atheist."

But you also say that an agnostic atheist is really just an atheist (one doesn't need to have the word 'agnostic' associated with it) as your chart says... an 'agnostic atheist' already is an atheist.

Therefore, is an agnostic theist already a theist?

You will find the answers to these questions in my last post. I’m not going to repeat them.

Or:

Was this whole thread created originally because some folk were saying that being an agnostic is a position in its own right rather than a subset of atheism and theism and you disagreed with them?

YES! - Game over.

Now go away and play with your crayons. Perhaps you might like to pull the wings off some flies? I'm sure you would find that fun.

Q - What do you call a fly with it's wings puled off?
A - A walk.

 

[tsig]

Hmm...

When I do it it's not labeling it's calling a spade a spade.

 

[Brian-M]

Q - What do you call a fly with it's wings puled off?
A - A walk.

Time flies like the wind.
Fruit flies like bananas.

(I suppose trading old jokes is more productive than trying to have a coherent discussion with Navigator.)

 

[Navigator]

Okay... this thread was created originally because some folk were saying that being an agnostic is a position in its own right rather than a subset of atheism and theism.

However it is not 'game over' yet ynot.

...Well you can leave your thread if you want and maybe someone else would like to answer a few more questions.

Why? Because they need to be asked, for clarity.

You see, if the default position is Atheist is everyone okay with theism being a Set Position?

If agnostic is not defined as being agnostic theist, then it is agnostic atheist by default.

Originally you said that someone who called themselves an agnostic atheist was in denial and was really an atheist.
Now you say what you meant was that there is not such thing as an Agnostic Set. That agnostics are in the subsets of both atheism and theism sets, so therefore it seems you are saying that there is such a subset position as an agnostic atheist.



If so the charts would look like this:

Am I correct or are you still saying that there is no such position in the sub group of the Atheism Set Position called "agnostic atheist"?

In which case the chart should look something like this:

Which chart is exactly as you think things should be.

(Hopefully one of them exemplifies what you are saying)

 

[ynot]

Time flies like the wind.
Fruit flies like bananas.

(I suppose trading old jokes is more productive than trying to have a coherent discussion with Navigator.)

Yeah. Scary thing is I'm not sure that he’s taking the piss at all. I think he might be actually serious. I would rather he was taking the piss then we could all just have a good laugh. Would rather laugh with someone than at them.

 

[Navigator]

Yeah. Scary thing is I'm not sure that he’s taking the piss at all. I think he might be actually serious. I would rather he was taking the piss then we could all just have a good laugh. Would rather laugh with someone than at them.

Yep - when you're ready I am here waiting for your answer.

 

[ynot]

Yep - when you're ready I am here waiting for your answer.

it's going to be a long wait. You have my answers and I'm not going to keep repeating them. If you come up with new questions that are worthy of answers I might offer a response.

 

[Navigator]

it's going to be a long wait. You have my answers and I'm not going to keep repeating them. If you come up with new questions that are worthy of answers I might offer a response.

Okay.

In relation to the idea of god(s) the default position is Atheist.

The closest position to default position is atheist.

Every other position is wandering around the corridors of belief and assumed knowledge.

"Hey I'm an agnostic theist!"

"Wow! I'm a agnostic atheist!"

"Sweet! That means we can argue our opposing theories endlessly!"

"I'm with you on that! With you my belies are pointless!"

"Ditto Bro!"

 

[ynot]

Okay.
In relation to the idea belief of god(s) the default position is Atheist.
The closest position to default position is atheist.

YES! (with the small edit). We are born without beliefs and we form them when we grow up. If we don’t form beliefs in god(s), or until we form them, we are atheists.

Every other position is wandering around the corridors of belief and assumed knowledge.
"Hey I'm an agnostic theist!"
"Wow! I'm a agnostic atheist!"

A few you missed out . . .
"Load of crap! I'm an I know gods don't exist atheist"
“Whatever, I’m a don't have a belief in god(s) atheist”
“Praise the Lord! I’m an I know god(s) exist theist”
“Hallelujah! I’m a believer with faith theist”

"Sweet! That means we can argue our opposing theories endlessly!"

Seems to me we might be getting close to agreement. Or are you just teasing me?

"I'm with you on that! With you my belies are pointless!"
"Ditto Bro!"

Not so. You can still get emotional comfort and a smug superiority from belies in god(s).

 

[Navigator]

YES! (with the small edit). We are born without beliefs and we form them when we grow up. If we don’t form beliefs in god(s), or until we form them, we are atheists.

The small edit you made does not take into acoount that the default position is forced through the idea of god(s) in the first place.

Otherwise the default position could be as easily and accurately said to be 'the lack of belief'.

Adding 'in god(s)' to that has to do with the idea of gods.

If the default position was simply "lack of belief" then the discussion wouldn't likely be just about things to do with atheism/theism specifically.

Apart from this, in relation to the belief of god(s) the position would be a theist one, but still not able to be a default position.

The default position is 'lacking belief in god(s) which is forced through the idea of god(s) - not the belief of god(s)

Therefore saying "In relation to the idea of god(s) the default position is Atheist." is correct and more correct than your 'small edit.'

A few you missed out . . .
"Load of crap! I'm an I know gods don't exist atheist"
“Whatever, I’m a don't have a belief in god(s) atheist”“Praise the Lord! I’m an I know god(s) exist theist”
“Hallelujah! I’m a believer with faith theist”

The highlighted is 'I don't have a belief in god(s) either way' atheist. Lacks belief in god(s) and lacks belief about god(s)"
Thus not wandering around the corridors of belief and assumed knowledge like the rest.

Seems to me we might be getting close to agreement. Or are you just teasing me?

I don't tease. If we are going to reach agreement, you will have to acknowledge that the best position is one of not only lacking belief in god(s) but also lacking belief about god(s). Specifically lacking belief about the existence of god(s).

The best position is the one which is as close to the default position possible.

Otherwise, nope. We are not going to agree.

Not so. You can still get emotional comfort and a smug superiority from belies in god(s).

Although I made a typo, it is appropriate.

All I can say regarding your observation is that all beliefs have this kind of effect. They don't have to be pro god(s) beliefs for that to be the case.

 

[ynot]

The small edit you made does not take into acoount that the default position is forced through the idea of god(s) in the first place.

Otherwise the default position could be as easily and accurately said to be 'the lack of belief'.

Adding 'in god(s)' to that has to do with the idea of gods.

If the default position was simply "lack of belief" then the discussion wouldn't likely be just about things to do with atheism/theism specifically.

Apart from this, in relation to the belief of god(s) the position would be a theist one, but still not able to be a default position.

The default position is 'lacking belief in god(s) which is forced through the idea of god(s) - not the belief of god(s)

Therefore saying "In relation to the idea of god(s) the default position is Atheist." is correct and more correct than your 'small edit.'





The highlighted is 'I don't have a belief in god(s) either way' atheist. Lacks belief in god(s) and lacks belief about god(s)"
Thus not wandering around the corridors of belief and assumed knowledge like the rest.



I don't tease. If we are going to reach agreement, you will have to acknowledge that the best position is one of not only lacking belief in god(s) but also lacking belief about god(s). Specifically lacking belief about the existence of god(s).

The best position is the one which is as close to the default position possible.

Otherwise, nope. We are not going to agree.




Although I made a typo, it is appropriate.

All I can say regarding your observation is that all beliefs have this kind of effect. They don't have to be pro god(s) beliefs for that to be the case.

Do you suffer from Asperger’s or some other autistic disorder? (serious question, not meant as an insult). I won’t be responding to that post, perhaps someone else might. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree buddy.

 

[barehl]

I've looked over this thread but I still can't find any logic in the discussion. The claims about the term "atheist" make no sense in any framework I can think of. I can appreciate the effort some have put in but, at the end of the day, the arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

It is impractical to define something as a negative category when there are large numbers of selections. Let's try a little exercise.

I have something that is not a hairbrush, not a flower, not a shoe, not a nail, not a sunset, not boredom, and not a song.

I could keep going but the futility of negative definitions in broad categories should be clear. Negative definitions are only practical when there are two possibilities.

Do you want the light on? Is the car warmed up? Do the shoes fit?

With two possibilities, a negative indicates the other. However, they are unwieldy even with three possibilities.

Was he tall? Was he average height? Was it expensive? Was it on sale? Are we going to be early? Are we going to be late?

The more categories we add the worse this becomes. Imagine trying to order breakfast only by negation.

Do you want pancakes? Do you want bacon? Do you want eggs? Do you want potatoes?

When you actually examine the variety of religious belief it's not difficult to see that the term "atheism" has no specific meaning. The common use of the term assumes context. You can in fact have religious belief that does not include either life after death or deities. That is not the same as a rejection of supernatural creation, instruction, or intervention.

"Naturalism" seems to describe a rejection of supernatural causes or influences.

 

[ynot]

I've looked over this thread but I still can't find any logic in the discussion. The claims about the term "atheist" make no sense in any framework I can think of. I can appreciate the effort some have put in but, at the end of the day, the arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

It is impractical to define something as a negative category when there are large numbers of selections. Let's try a little exercise.

I have something that is not a hairbrush, not a flower, not a shoe, not a nail, not a sunset, not boredom, and not a song.

I could keep going but the futility of negative definitions in broad categories should be clear. Negative definitions are only practical when there are two possibilities.

Do you want the light on? Is the car warmed up? Do the shoes fit?

With two possibilities, a negative indicates the other. However, they are unwieldy even with three possibilities.

Was he tall? Was he average height? Was it expensive? Was it on sale? Are we going to be early? Are we going to be late?

The more categories we add the worse this becomes. Imagine trying to order breakfast only by negation.

Do you want pancakes? Do you want bacon? Do you want eggs? Do you want potatoes?

When you actually examine the variety of religious belief it's not difficult to see that the term "atheism" has no specific meaning. The common use of the term assumes context. You can in fact have religious belief that does not include either life after death or deities. That is not the same as a rejection of supernatural creation, instruction, or intervention.

"Naturalism" seems to describe a rejection of supernatural causes or influences.

You are misinterpreting the meaning of atheism. Atheism isn’t having a negative belief; it’s having no (null) belief. Lack of belief isn’t a replacement for belief; it’s the default position before a belief is chosen. The definition between theism and atheism is "has belief" and "has no belief". The number and variety of religions and gods to believe in is irrelevant.

“A” collects stamps, “B” doesn’t collect stamps. “A” has chosen to collect stamps, “B” has not chosen to collect stamps. “B” doesn’t necessarily have to have chosen not to collect stamps because not collecting stamps is “B’s” (and "A's") default position. Replace “A” with “theist”, “B” with “atheist” and “collect stamps” with “belief in god(s)”.

 

[barehl]

You are misinterpreting the meaning of atheism. Atheism isn’t having a negative belief; it’s having no (null) belief.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I wasn't talking about a negative belief; I was talking about a negative definition.

Lack of belief isn’t a replacement for belief; it’s the default position before a belief is chosen.

Let's try that assertion with substitution.

Lack of {belief} isn’t a replacement for {belief}; it’s the default position before a {belief} is chosen.

Lack of {X} isn’t a replacement for {X}; it’s the default position before an {X} is chosen.

Lack of {a polar bear in my living room} isn't a replacement for {a polar bear in my living room}; it’s the default position before {a polar bear in my living room} is chosen.

Okay, it is clear that the assertion is not a general one. Let's try it with simplification by removing the unnecessary, negative sub-assertion:

Lack of {belief} isn’t a replacement for {belief}; it’s is the default position before a {belief} is chosen.

Once you choose a belief, you have one and a lack is not having. So, this statement actually seems to be a comparison of possession.

Lack ofNot having a {belief} is the default position before having a {belief} is chosen.

Not having a {belief} is the default position before having a {belief}.

Let's try that again with substitution:

Not having a {a polar bear in my living room} is the default position before having a {a polar bear in my living room}.

With this, you can see that the symmetry of the statement asserts two things: that lack is always first and that having cannot be changed. Your assertion is only valid if you can prove both of these. Or...perhaps you need to alter your assertion.

The definition between theism and atheism is "has belief" and "has no belief". The number and variety of religions and gods to believe in is irrelevant.

Okay, let's try that:

John believes that rocks have souls but people don't.
David believes that higher deities survive by consuming human souls.
Fred believes that souls exist before birth but cease to exist when people die.
Bill believes that he receives revelations from his cat.
Frank believes that he can reach a higher state of consciousness by eating marshmallows.

Which is an atheist and which is not?

“A” collects stamps, “B” doesn’t collect stamps. “A” has chosen to collect stamps, “B” has not chosen to collect stamps. “B” doesn’t necessarily have to have chosen not to collect stamps because not collecting stamps is “B’s” (and "A's") default position.

Or more like this:

“A” collects a particular subset of stamps.
“B” doesn’t collect stamps but does collect corn husk dolls.
“A” has chosen to collect this particular subset of stamps. He may or may not have known about other collectibles or other stamps and may or may not have chosen to find out more about other collectibles or other stamps or may actually have wanted to collect other stamps but may have chosen not to because of a particular collecting group that he is active in or because of a lack of time or money or a lack of particular expertise in another subset of stamps or collectibles.
“B” has not chosen to collect stamps.
“B” doesn’t necessarily have to have chosen not to collect stamps but could actually have reasons that overlap heavily with "A".

 

[ynot]

You are misunderstanding what I said. I wasn't talking about a negative belief; I was talking about a negative definition.

It is impractical to define something as a negative category when there are large numbers of selections.

You were actually talking about "negative category" as hilited above. In this debate theism (belief in god or gods) and atheism (no beleif in god or gods) are categories. Both categories are exclusively concerned with belief, therefore negative category = negative belief.

<snip>Meaningless waffle</snip> [/QUOTE]
In this thread we are exclusively debating belief in god(s). When I say “belief” I shouldn’t have to explain that I mean ”belief in god(s)”.

Or more like this:

“A” collects a particular subset of stamps.
“B” doesn’t collect stamps but does collect corn husk dolls.
“A” has chosen to collect this particular subset of stamps. He may or may not have known about other collectibles or other stamps and may or may not have chosen to find out more about other collectibles or other stamps or may actually have wanted to collect other stamps but may have chosen not to because of a particular collecting group that he is active in or because of a lack of time or money or a lack of particular expertise in another subset of stamps or collectibles.
“B” has not chosen to collect stamps.
“B” doesn’t necessarily have to have chosen not to collect stamps but could actually have reasons that overlap heavily with "A".

More meaningless waffle that has nothing to with my analogy. Why did you conveniently leave out? . . .

Replace “A” with “theist”, “B” with “atheist” and “collect stamps” with “belief in god(s)”.

 

[Navigator]

Not having a {belief} is the default position before having a {belief}.

mmmm.....

Stay close to the default position, and things will be less complicated.

 

[ynot]

mmmm.....

Stay close to the default position, and things will be less complicated.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9626[/qimg]

For the purposes of this thread, in which we are specifically debating belief in god(s), we are NOT debating “The process of the evolution of consciousness from the default position” of beliefs per se. All beliefs other than belief in god(s) are totally irrelevant to this debate.

The default position for this debate is therefore NOT “No beliefs”. IT IS SPECIFICALLY “NO BELIEF IN GOD(S)". (sometimes you just gotta shout)

Please have another go starting with the correct default position, which is "No beliefs in god(s)". (sometimes you just gotta keep repeating things)

If you’re going to make a diagram with theist and atheist categories (and possibly a third), please at least get the atheist category correct. It’s “Has no belief in god(s)”, not “Believes god(s) don’t exist”.

I wish people would stop confusing and derailing this thread with unrelated waffle and arguments.

 

[Navigator]

For the purposes of this thread, in which we are specifically debating belief in god(s), we are NOT debating “The process of the evolution of consciousness from the default position” of beliefs per se. All beliefs other than belief in god(s) are totally irrelevant to this debate.

The process of the evolution of consciousness from the default position is part of the debate, since the state of a newborn human baby is what is determining the default position.

The default position for this debate is therefore NOT “No beliefs”. IT IS SPECIFICALLY “NO BELIEF IN GOD(S)". (sometimes you just gotta shout)

If your claim is that the default position of the state of a human baby is actually just 'no belief in god(s) then you are only taking into account one small aspect of the state of a new-born and focusing upon that alone to build your argument.

In doing so you are not acknowledging and presenting the full truth so are arguing from a position of untruthfulness. The argument is therefore incomplete because what you are arguing is from an incomplete position.

Please have another go starting with the correct default position, which is "No beliefs in god(s)". (sometimes you just gotta keep repeating things)

That is an incorrect description of the actual state of the default position of a newborn human. Therefore your argument starts at an incorrect position in the first place.

I wish people would stop confusing and derailing this thread with unrelated waffle and arguments.

But that is not what is actually happening. I am trying to show you that your premise is incomplete in the first place so therefore your argument isn't correct either.

The CORRECT (yes sometimes one does have to shout) default position of a newborn human being is having No Beliefs. Not just 'no beliefs in god(s).'

My chart shows what actually happens, rather than just what you want me and others to believe is what happens.

Fix your premise in relation to the actual state of a newborn child. Your support for the ancient claim that 'all humans are born atheists' is one based upon a faulty premise to begin with.

 

[ynot]

The process of the evolution of consciousness from the default position is part of the debate, since the state of a newborn human baby is what is determining the default position.

For the purposes of this debate the default position is only relevant in relation to god beliefs. That’s what my argument is all about (Agnostics are Atheists in Denial). The default position relative to this argument IS “No belief in gods”. The default position relative to this argument IS NOT “No beliefs”. As babies can’t have a belief in gods obviously they don’t. What would a baby's “No belief in Jupiter” have to do with this debate?

If your claim is that the default position of the state of a human baby is actually just 'no belief in god(s) then you are only taking into account one small aspect of the state of a new-born and focusing upon that alone to build your argument.

For the purposes of this debate the default position is only relevant in relation to god beliefs. That’s what my argument is all about (Agnostics are Atheists in Denial). The default position relative to this argument IS “No belief in gods”. The default position relative to this argument IS NOT “No beliefs”. As babies can’t have a belief in gods obviously they don’t. What would a baby's “No belief in Jupiter” have to do with this debate?

In doing so you are not acknowledging and presenting the full truth so are arguing from a position of untruthfulness. The argument is therefore incomplete because what you are arguing is from an incomplete position.

Utter rubbish! I’m presenting a specific argument (Agnostics are Atheists in Denial) from a position that is totally relevant to that specific argument. You might as well argue that my argument is untruthful because it’s not about absolutely everything and is therefore incomplete.

That is an incorrect description of the actual state of the default position of a newborn human. Therefore your argument starts at an incorrect position in the first place.

For the purposes of this debate the default position is only relevant in relation to god beliefs. That’s what my argument is all about (Agnostics are Atheists in Denial). The default position relative to this argument IS “No belief in gods”. The default position relative to this argument IS NOT “No beliefs”. As babies can’t have a belief in gods obviously they don’t. What would a baby's “No belief in Jupiter” have to do with this debate?

But that is not what is actually happening. I am trying to show you that your premise is incomplete in the first place so therefore your argument isn't correct either.
The CORRECT (yes sometimes one does have to shout) default position of a newborn human being is having No Beliefs. Not just 'no beliefs in god(s).'
My chart shows what actually happens, rather than just what you want me and others to believe is what happens.
Fix your premise in relation to the actual state of a newborn child. Your support for the ancient claim that 'all humans are born atheists' is one based upon a faulty premise to begin with.

For the purposes of this debate the default position is only relevant in relation to god beliefs. That’s what my argument is all about (Agnostics are Atheists in Denial). The default position relative to this argument IS “No belief in gods”. The default position relative to this argument IS NOT “No beliefs”. As babies can’t have a belief in gods obviously they don’t. What would a baby's “No belief in Jupiter” have to do with this debate?

If you can’t accept that this thread is specifically about beliefs in gods, and respond accordingly, then go away and play in your own thread.