Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Navigator]

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?

Doesn't matter. When you say that every newborn human is an atheist because every baby does not believe in god(s) you stack the deck and the argument itself is made of straw.

But hey. If you want to argue from a false premise in the first place...

...no but wait a minute now...are you saying that everyone is not an atheist unless one argues about belief(s) about god(s)?

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?

Well then. So the default position is only pretend for the purpose of debating about whether 'Agnostics are Atheists' and thus in order to 'prove' this is so, one has to pretend the default position of an actual new born human being is only no belief in god(s)...no beliefs in anything else is not the point of the debate.
...sounds like fun...

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.

So yes. If I started a thread with the OP argument that atheism is not about being true to the default position 'No Beliefs' of a newborn human but it is about believing god(s) don't exist which actually moves away from the default position (from 'no beliefs' to 'believing god(s) don't exist') then my chart would reflect the accuracy of this argument and the argument would be true.

So it all depends upon the subject, based on the default position as to the predetermined outcome.

Your default position (even though not actually true) 'proves' therefore that Agnostics are really Atheists in denial.

or...does it...

If your default position is only made up for the purpose of showing something to be true, but is based upon a false premise in the first place, how can it really be true?

In fact, since the premise that all babies are born atheists is well believed by many atheists, since it is not even actual, the understood position as to 'what actually is an atheist' has to depend upon the actual truth of the position of a newborn human.

Therefore my chart would place all atheists as those who consciousness evolves away from the actual default position - Atheists evolve away from the actual default position.

If you are saying that one can be an atheist and still not have any beliefs regarding god(s), such as the belief that god(s) don't exist, (which is different from 'lacking belief in god(s)) then you are really describing a plain old agnostic.

It is Agnostics who have no beliefs in god(s). Atheists are the same but - they also believe god(s) don't exist, so they actually move away from the default position you are arguing from anyway.

The default position you are arguing from is 'have no beliefs in god(s)'

A plain old agnostic holds neither of two opposing positions arguing for or against belief in god(s)

An atheist does hold an opposing position. An atheist does lack belief in god(s) but also believes that god(s) do not exist.

So if the default position is just one of 'has no belief (lacks belief) in god(s)' the plain old agnostic is closer to the default that the atheist.

The atheist (who argues that an agnostic is really an atheist in denial) in that sense is the one in denial about his/her position in relation to the default position. The atheist (who argues that an agnostic is really an atheists in denial) thinks that he/she is closer to the default position than the agnostic.

 

[barehl]

I made a simple assertion that the term "atheism" is too vague to be useful. I'm still failing to comprehend why atheism would not be a rather poorly defined subset of naturalism.

My background is computer science which is somewhere between rigorously and fanatically logical. In other words, if someone can explain something in a consistently logical fashion I can comprehend it. I'm going to put down some definitions and I would like a logically consistent answer on the basis of these definitions.

Set - A collection of items.
Subset - A collection of items that is less than or equal to another known collection.
Selection - Choosing one or more items from a finite set.
Selection Criteria - A property shared by all items in a set that can be used to assign comparative value.
Decision - True if a selection has been made for a set.
Selection Result - What was chosen from a set.
Null Selection - The result of a selection if any of the following are true:

1. A set is empty.
2. A set is infinite.
3. More than one item had the best comparative value AND the number of items that can be selected is less than the number of items with the best comparative value.
4. No selection criteria is available for the set.
5. No decision has been made for the set.

A given set will always have a non-null selection result if all of the following are true:

• The set contains at least one item.
• The set is finite.
• Only one item had the best comparative value OR the number of items that can be selected is equal to or greater than the number of items with the best comparative value.
• The set has a selection criteria.
• A decision has been made for the set.

As far as I can gather, the terms theism and atheism are asserted to be about a selection from the set of {gods}. Since there are a finite number of humans and presumably each human would have a finite list of gods, we can assume that this set is finite. However, I have not been able to define what the members of the set would be. Some options seem to be:

• Builder - a maker of part or all of the material world.
• Dualistic endowment - giving a non-material essence to something material.
• Instruction - giving knowledge that would otherwise not be available.
• Command - giving an arbitrary list of practices with rewards for compliance and penalties for non-compliance.
• Interference - giving assistance or hindrance to some material configuration.
• Extended existence - existence either before or apart from material things.

Since this list does not include a common selection criteria, I don't see how selection would be possible. To obtain a selection, it appears that you would need to either make a random choice, choose the entire list, or restrict the list in some fashion until one common criteria is available.

 

[ynot]

A brief summary . . .

My claim/argument (expanded for clarity) . . .

Agnostics that claim they are neither theists (agnostic theists) nor atheists (agnostic atheists), are atheists (agnostic atheists) in denial”. They are atheists (agnostic atheists) in denial because if they haven’t chosen to be a theist (agnostic theist), they remain an atheist (agnostic atheist) by default. They aren't theists (agnostic theists) in denial because theism isn't the default category. You have to become a theist, unless and until you become a theist, you are an atheist.

Default Category = Atheism
Default Position = Atheist
Definition = No belief in god(s)
Reasons for no belief in god(s) . . .

• Incapable of choosing beliefs (baby/mentally retarded atheist)
• Never presented with god(s) choice (uninformed atheist)
• Not interested in making a god(s) choice (disinterested atheist)
• Can’t choose if god(s) exist or not (indecisive/ambivalent atheist)
• Doesn't choose to believe in god(s) without knowledge (realistic/agnostic atheist)
• Claims god(s) don’t exist (knowledge atheist)

Chosen Category = Theism
Chosen Position = Theist
Definition = Belief in god(s)
Reasons for belief in god(s) . . .

• Indoctrinated into belief in god(s) (inherited/brainwashed theist)
• Chooses to believe in god(s) without knowledge (faith/agnostic theist)
• Claims god(s) exist (knowledge theist)

 

[barehl]

A brief summary . . .

I take this to mean that you cannot answer my question in a logically consistent way and an answer without logical consistency is of no value. Is there anyone else in this thread who can answer or who can point out a logical flaw in my question?

 

[ynot]

I take this to mean that you cannot answer my question in a logically consistent way and an answer without logical consistency is of no value. Is there anyone else in this thread who can answer or who can point out a logical flaw in my question?

If you want to debate whether “atheism is too vague a term to be useful” then start your own thread for that debate. Don’t derail my thread with that debate. I'm not interested in that debate, and I'm not interested in proving any answers regarding that debate. I have no idea if any other members might like to take part in that debate.

Forum Rule 11 – “You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads . . .”

 

[barehl]

If you want to debate whether “atheism is too vague a term to be useful” then start your own thread for that debate. Don’t derail my thread with that debate. I'm not interested in that debate, and I'm not interested in proving any answers regarding that debate. I have no idea if any other members might like to take part in that debate.

Thread participation ended.

 

[RickM]

Thread participation ended.

Join the club. Membership is booming!

 

[Navigator]

Chooses to believe in god(s) without knowledge (faith/agnostic theist)

An agnostic is simply someone who does not make choices regarding beliefs.

If someone chooses to believe in god(s) they are theists, not agnostics.

 

[Brian-M]

An agnostic is simply someone who does not make choices regarding beliefs.

No. An agnostic is someone who either does not claim to know, or claims that it is unknowable.

If someone chooses to believe in god(s) they are theists, not agnostics.

No. Belief and knowledge are two separate things.
You can believe something is true without knowing something is true.

For example, I believe that there is no such thing as magical pixies.
But I do not know that there is no such thing as magical pixies.

Another example, a person can believe that intelligent life does exist on other planets and still admit that they don't know that life exists on other planets.

An agnostic theist is just like that. They believe God exists, but don't claim to know that God exists.

 

[ynot]

An agnostic is simply someone who does not make choices regarding beliefs.

If someone chooses to believe in god(s) they are theists, not agnostics.

What Brian-M said.

 

[Navigator]

No. An agnostic is someone who either does not claim to know, or claims that it is unknowable.



No. Belief and knowledge are two separate things.
You can believe something is true without knowing something is true.

For example, I believe that there is no such thing as magical pixies.
But I do not know that there is no such thing as magical pixies.

Another example, a person can believe that intelligent life does exist on other planets and still admit that they don't know that life exists on other planets.

An agnostic theist is just like that. They believe God exists, but don't claim to know that God exists.

Agnostic

Agnostic

Agnostic

Agnostic

One thing I have learned over the years of interacting on this and other message boards is that it pays not to take people at their word just because they say so, and say so with a tone of authority.

In relation to god(s) an agnostic neither believes OR knows, and as such is clearly closer to the default position than an atheist OR a theist.

'Agnostic theists' and 'agnostic atheists' are obviously not really agnostics if they claim to believe OR know.

 

[Brian-M]

Agnostic

And the first two definitions on that link agree with mine.

Agnostic

Yep, agrees with me again.

Agnostic

If you scroll down to "Full Definition" on that page, you'll see that this definition agrees with me too, and that believing is only covered when speaking "broadly" (which we aren't, because we're discussing the specific attributes of atheism and agnosticism).

Agnostic

And the first definition on that page agrees with me as well.

One thing I have learned over the years of interacting on this and other message boards is that it pays not to take people at their word just because they say so, and say so with a tone of authority.

Okay, I'll follow your advice and not take you at your word just because you say so, or because you say so with a tone of authority.

Maybe you're getting confused because the word is used to mean different things in different contexts?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Doesn't matter. When you say that every newborn human is an atheist because every baby does not believe in god(s) you stack the deck and the argument itself is made of straw.

Are you saying that new born babies DO believe in a god or gods?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Are you saying that new born babies DO believe in a god or gods?

Ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?

To use a fallacy you should point out exactly how it applies. Otherwise you look foolish.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

To use a fallacy you should point out exactly how it applies. Otherwise you look foolish.

No, because it also requires that you can repeat the thought process. So it doesn't matter if I do so, if you can't understand it.

It is also called false dilemma and to spot such a false dilemma requires what, Gawdzilla Sama? I mean you claimed this disguised as a question:

Are you saying that new born babies DO believe in a god or gods?

Now ask yourself this: If a baby can't believe (in a relevant manner), is it then relevant to ask if it believe or disbelieves in god(s)?
Can you spot the false dilemma now?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, because it also requires that you can repeat the thought process. So it doesn't matter if I do so, if you can't understand it.

It's not that you won't, it's that you can't. Fail.

It is also called false dilemma and to spot such a false dilemma requires what, Gawdzilla Sama? I mean you claimed this disguised as a question:



Now ask yourself this: If a baby can't believe (in a relevant manner), is it then relevant to ask if it believe or disbelieves in god(s)?
Can you spot the false dilemma now?

Still failing. Babies have to be programmed to believe in religion as they grow up. If, like me, they weren't, then it does often "take" later in life.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It's not that you won't, it's that you can't. Fail.

Still failing. Babies have to be programmed to believe in religion as they grow up. If, like me, they weren't, then it does often "take" later in life.

So a baby who hasn't reached the level of being able to be programmed to believe in religion, is in the exactly manner an atheist like me?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So a baby who hasn't reached the level of being able to be programmed to believe in religion, is in the exactly manner an atheist like me?

The Rule of So again?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The Rule of So again?

Please explain this rule according to your own rule of that you can't just state a rule. Rather you have to use it and explain how it works.