Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Or so your beliefs inform you.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial
- Thread starter ynot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- agnosticism atheism
Or so your beliefs inform you.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You failed to answer the question, "Which gods do you believe in?"
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Where was that question asked of me?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Here.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Ah, you're an atheist then. Settled.
Bit like the Bible proving the Bible. Navigator's fact is correct because Navigator say it is. NEWSFLASH! for Navigator - Many others including myself don't agree with navigator and we don't accept his "fact" or his explanation of why it's a fact.No. navigator simply acknowledges the middle position as fact. Navigator explains in same post why navigator acknowledges the fact.
ETA
When navigator had belief systems, navigator did not notice the fact thus navigator could not acknowledge the fact...
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
I don't not believe in god(s) either.
So what exactly do you mean when you say 'believe in'?
Do you mean 'believe in them' or 'believe they exist'?
If you meant. 'believe they exist' then no - but I don't believe that they don't exist either. (that would make me an atheist)
If you meant 'believe in god(s) as in - believe they can do things that people believe they can do' then no. (that would make me a theist)
I have seen no evidence either way for either type of belief.
That is why my position is middle.
if you had read my recent earlier posts you would have known that.
Last edited:
Claims to be an agnostic that's neither a theist nor atheist. A classic atheist in denial.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
That would be because of your beliefs.
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
More assumption sourced from your own belief systems. You don't acknowledge because your beliefs prevent you from being able to do so.
So what?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Which isn't a requirement for being an atheist. Therefore you're an atheist.
Not necessarily. You're using different definitions.
I think the issue here is the language used.
"I don't believe in any god(s)" is the same as "I believe there aren't any god(s)."
They have the same meaning: the lack of belief that any gods exist. The only difference is the strength of the words used. "I believe there aren't any gods" is the stronger statement. It's taking a stance that there are no gods while the other statement uses "believe in" which comes off like a form of worship instead of existence. Are you saying by "not believing in" god(s), you're not denying its existence, or are you not worshiping?
Wrong. The first is a stance, the second is one of many possible reasons for that stance.
The first is "I don't have a belief in god(s)", the second is "I do have a belief about god(s)". Hoe do you get "same" out of that?
The only "sameness" is that they both apply to atheists.
Last edited:
So which definition would you choose as being the most correct?
Last edited:
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Strictly speaking, that is the same as saying you do believe in god(s).
I assume you meant you "don't believe that no gods(s) exist either"?
It's clear that the problem is that we're using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" in different ways.
So how about we change the situation by replacing the words with short descriptors indicating what we mean by these words?
We're saying that you're an [non-believer] and you're disagreeing by saying that you're an [non-believer], not an [disbeliever].
That's where the confusion is coming from, we're using the same words to label different concepts:
atheist | [disbeliever] | [non-believer]
agnostic | [non-believer] | [non-knower]
Existing definitions are vague enough that both ways of using these words are correct.
This is what I meant before about words being used to mean different things in different contexts. It's not "done so to create confusion and argument" as you claimed, it's just that different groups people have given these words specific definitions in order to clarify what they mean amongst each other, and then come across other groups who have done the same thing with the same words, except that they've used different definitions than the first group.
Last edited:
Then what would you define "believe in" as? Worship? Existence?
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
My position is the middle ground. Since many who call themselves 'atheists' do in fact believe that no god(s) exist, they differ from the middle position and thus I am not an atheist.
Theism and atheism can try to squeeze out the fact of the middle ground, but that too is irrelevant.
If it were a question which scientific process could answer, science would take into account that if something moves away from the default position, then that something is no longer at the default position. Atheism moves away so does not represent the default position.
Therefore atheism is not the default position. The middle position remains true to the default position. The middle position is neither atheism or theism.
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
No, they have different meanings:
"I don't believe in any god(s)" = I lack belief that god(s) exist
"I believe there aren't any god(s)" = I possess belief that no god(s) exist
If you were uncertain as to whether or not a god exists then:
"I don't believe in any god(s)" would be true, and
"I believe there aren't any god(s)" would be false
"I believe there aren't any god(s)" would be false