Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

You confuse a rule with a fallacy.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You confuse a rule with a fallacy.

I will try again.
A newborn who is not programmed to believe is exactly the same kind of atheist like me because I choose to become an atheist. The difference is the ability to choose and the lack of that in a newborn.

So as a false dilemma: A newborn chooses not to believe or to believe in god(s).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I will try again.
A newborn who is not programmed to believe is exactly the same kind of atheist like me because I choose to become an atheist. The difference is the ability to choose and the lack of that in a newborn.

So as a false dilemma: A newborn chooses not to believe or to believe in god(s).

Now go back and read what I said.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Now go back and read what I said.

Yes, you have a point.
If we restrict the meaning of atheist to mean "doesn't believe in god(s)" then yes. But there is a difference between these two definitions of definition:

: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
: a statement that describes what something is

Can you spot the difference?

 

[Brian-M]

Ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?

That doesn't apply when it's a question of "A" or "Not-A", because in that situation there is nothing excluded.

"Not-A" includes anything other than "A", including both the middle position and the opposite position.

In this case, because we're using the word "Atheist" to mean "Not-Theist", it's a question of "Theist" or "Not-Theist". No middle excluded because "Not" includes the middle.

The fallacy of the only the excluded middle only comes up when you're forcing a choice between "A" or "Z", without allowing any other "Not-A" option, such as "B".

An example of this would be insisting that someone is either "For Us" or "Against Us".

If it was a question of "For Us" or "Not For Us", then there would be no excluded middle, because "Not For Us" includes both "Against Us" and "Neither For Us Nor Against Us".

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That doesn't apply when it's a question of "A" or "Not-A", because in that situation there is nothing excluded.

"Not-A" includes anything other than "A", including both the middle position and the opposite position.

In this case, because we're using the word "Atheist" to mean "Not-Theist", it's a question of "Theist" or "Not-Theist". No middle excluded because "Not" includes the middle.

The fallacy of the only the excluded middle only comes up when you're forcing a choice between "A" or "Z", without allowing any other "Not-A" option, such as "B".

An example of this would be insisting that someone is either "For Us" or "Against Us".

If it was a question of "For Us" or "Not For Us", then there would be no excluded middle, because "Not For Us" includes both "Against Us" and "Neither For Us Nor Against Us".

Yes, you have a point.

So here is mine. Atheism in newborn children is not the same as in some adults.

 

[Navigator]

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

Yet the third does not.

Yep, agrees with me again.

Yet from that link it says this:
In the popular sense of the term, an "agnostic", according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God does exist and an atheist does not believe that God exists

If you scroll down to "Full Definition" on that page, you'll see that this definition agrees with me too,

The full definition says;

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

and that believing is only covered when speaking "broadly" (which we aren't, because we're discussing the specific attributes of atheism and agnosticism).

What are the specific attributes of these two positions?

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

Yet the second does not. So how are you to define the specific attributes of an agnostic when the definitions are so wishy washy in the first place?

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.

Here's some more advice. Don't trust something which is defined differently which thus allows for confusion and argument. If the subject cannot be agreed upon due to the differing definitions, then any argument about that subject cannot be valid.

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

Nope. I am not confused. I can see clearly what is going on here. If any word is used to mean something else depending on the context, then it is done so to create confusion and argument in the first place.

The way to change that is to assign words to different context which are not going to be able to cause confusion or argument.

Why were words permitted to be used in this way in the first place? Did the ancients have to small a vocabulary? Or did those in opposing positions of leadership realize that their positions and their opposing arguments would become invalid if the common people they were directing got a whiff of the charade?

 

[Navigator]

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

Nope. I am saying that new born babies don't believe in anything.
This means that they also lack belief that god(s) don't exist.

 

[Navigator]

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.

In relation to all beliefs, babies (as their consciousness evolves) have to be programmed.

This includes the belief that god(s) don't exist.

All that is not programmed is the lack of belief (actual default position). They don't start off lacking in belief that god(s) do or don't exist.

 

[Navigator]

I will try again.
A newborn who is not programmed to believe is exactly the same kind of atheist like me because I choose to become an atheist. The difference is the ability to choose and the lack of that in a newborn.

So as a false dilemma: A newborn chooses not to believe or to believe in god(s).

So if you choose to become an atheist, you have moved away from the default position, through that ability to choose.

Thus the default position is not 'atheist' at all.

If one has the ability to chose (for or against) but uses that ability NOT to chose either for or against, one remains in the default position. One chooses to remain in the default position.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So if you choose to become an atheist, you have moved away from the default position, through that ability to choose.

Thus the default position is not 'atheist' at all.

If one has the ability to chose (for or against) but uses that ability NOT to chose either for or against, one remains in the default position. One chooses to remain in the default position.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My position is not that atheism is the default position.

 

[Navigator]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My position is not that atheism is the default position.

Yes I know. I was just emphasizing that in my own words. You said you chose to be an atheist. You could just as easily chose to be neither atheist or theist and remain in the default position (having no beliefs) whilst still evolving with consciousness.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes I know. I was just emphasizing that in my own words. You said you chose to be an atheist. You could just as easily chose to be neither atheist or theist and remain in the default position (having no beliefs) whilst still evolving with consciousness.

No, because I was programmed as a Christian, before I could choose.

 

[ynot]

Yes, you have a point.
So here is mine. Atheism in newborn children is not the same as in some adults.

At least you’re admitting “Atheism in newborn children” exists. But your contradictory posts seem to argue with themselves so who knows what you think.

You’re wrong regardless. Atheism remains the same for everyone "No belief in god(s)",

The reason for the atheism may different in babies and adults. It may also be the same as in mentally retarded adults.

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)

 

[ynot]

This includes the belief that god(s) don't exist.

That’s a possible reason for atheism, not the definition of atheism (Lack of belief in gods)

All that is not programmed is the lack of belief (actual default position). They don't start off lacking in belief that god(s) do or don't exist.

And “lack of belief (in gods)” is the definition of atheism (actual default position). Belief that gods don’t exist is a possible reason for atheism.

(rinse and repeat)

 

[ehcks]

Yes, you have a point.

So here is mine. Atheism in newborn children is not the same as in some adults.

I suppose. There are many different kinds of atheism. That's expected, because atheism isn't a very useful term. It's too broad. It is everything that isn't a belief in a god.

But a baby is still atheist, and there are some adults who are atheist because they've never heard of the word "god" or the concept of gods, and someone trying to explain it to them sounds like gibberish and nonsense.

 

[Navigator]

No, because I was programmed as a Christian, before I could choose.

Right, yes - that was the other thing I mentioned.

In relation to all beliefs, babies (as their consciousness evolves) have to be programmed.

This includes the belief that god(s) don't exist. (some are programmed to be atheists rather than - as in your case, theists)

All that is not programmed is the lack of belief (actual default position). You don't start off lacking in belief that god(s) do or don't exist. Thus your choice to be atheist, while not a choice made for you, had something to do with your having no choice in relation to being programmed as a theist and perhaps not being aware that choosing the opposing belief was not your only option.

It seems apparent that those moving from theism to atheism are still operating under the illusion that belief has to be part of any process they choose. Thus the choice not to have any beliefs is missing from the list of alternate options. The only thing on the 'list' which is not theism is atheism. But that isn't actually true.

There is another choice which can be made which does not include the prerequisite of having to believe anything.

That choice is the choice which allows one to not believe anything. Not to have to either be an atheist or a theist.

Generally the position is know as agnostic. However, the meaning of that position is blurred by both those practicing atheism beliefs and those practicing theism beliefs who do not want to acknowledge the neutral position as a valid one who and wish to place ownership on the label 'agnostic' and apply confusing definitions to the word agnostic as part of that process.

This is something which has been happening since ancient times. The battle between theism and atheism. Both sides do not want to acknowledge the reality that an individual does not have to take the position of either side, because there is a third position available.

The idea then was to *taint that position by trying to merge it with theism or atheism and confuse the issue. Something which this thread topic is involved in *supporting.

It is much like dragging a neutral party into the fray, without their consent and claiming that neutral party is somehow 'deluded' to think they can actually be impartial in relation to either atheism or theism belief systems.

The claim is rubbish. Of course it is possible to be in a neutral position in regards to atheism and theism. Of course it is a position unto itself. Of course it is the position closest to the default position.

 

[ynot]

I suppose. There are many different kinds of atheism. That's expected, because atheism isn't a very useful term. It's too broad. It is everything that isn't a belief in a god.

But a baby is still atheist, and there are some adults who are atheist because they've never heard of the word "god" or the concept of gods, and someone trying to explain it to them sounds like gibberish and nonsense.

There are many reasons people are atheists, but there is only one kind of atheism - “Lack of belief in god(s)”.

Essentially “Lack of belief in god(s)” means “Not a theist”. A baby is obviously not a theist.

 

[Navigator]

That’s a possible reason for atheism, not the definition of atheism (Lack of belief in gods)

The true definition of atheist is 'lack of belief in god(s) and believing that god(s) don't exist. (the 'and' bit clearly shows movement away from the default position 'lack of belief in god(s)).

Lack of belief in god(s) is different from 'lack of beliefs in god(s) and believing that god(s) don't exist.

The definition you are trying to use for atheist is false. It is the true definition of an agnostic as generally understood, not an atheist. Take away the labels (atheist agnostic and theist) because the definitions have been made confusing since ancient times and this chart explains what is really happening.

And “lack of belief (in gods)” is the definition of atheism (actual default position). Belief that gods don’t exist is a possible reason for atheism.

(rinse and repeat

This post explains adequately why your argument is based upon false premise. No amount of 'rinsing & repeating' is going to change the truth of this.

 

[ynot]

The true definition of atheist is 'lack of belief in god(s) and believing that god(s) don't exist. (the 'and' bit clearly shows movement away from the default position 'lack of belief in god(s)).

Lack of belief in god(s) is different from 'lack of beliefs in god(s) and believing that god(s) don't exist.

The definition you are trying to use for atheist is false. It is the true definition of an agnostic as generally understood, not an atheist. Take away the labels (atheist agnostic and theist) because the definitions have been made confusing since ancient times and this chart explains what is really happening.

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




This post explains adequately why your argument is based upon false premise. No amount of 'rinsing & repeating' is going to change the truth of this.

The bible Navigators chart says it’s so, therefore it is.