Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[IanS]

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.

There is plenty of evidence to show that religious gods have never existed. And loads of evidence to show that such beliefs were simply the superstitions typical of ancient uneducated times.

Modern science is filled with mountains of evidence showing that all the ancient claims about gods such as the Christian Yahweh, are both untrue and mostly physically impossible.

So why haven't you seen the evidence of current science?

You presumably know that evolution shows how Yahweh did not make humans?

 

[ynot]

And, lastly, if the question of God came before Congress, there would be three choices and not two. It can't be simplified any further than this:

Yea (believer) Go to Heaven
Nay (disbeliever) Go to Hell
Abstain (agnostic) Go to Hell

(added bold words mine)

God would say there are only two choices. "You do believe in me or you don’t".

To a theist you either believe, and worship their god, or you don’t. Regardless of whether you can’t decide or make the “wrong” decision, if you don’t positively believe then you’re a nasty atheist. Once you know of God you have to choose God or else. You don't get in to Heaven or avoid going to Hell by refusing to play God's silly game.

 

[RickM]

Should I take my philosophy lesson from philosopher William L. Rowe?

“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”

In over 180 posts you’ve made in this thread, the above quotation is the only reference/link you have provided “on your own,” and, guess what, it supports my position and not yours! Instead, your case has been nothing more than a dogmatic, and incessant repetition of the same opinion. Unless your opinion is occasionally sprinkled with some valid research, it is nothing more than unsubstantiated dogma. Are you going to continue let others do your heavy lifting (Brian-M), or do you have anything original to bring to the table?

 

[ynot]

In over 180 posts you’ve made in this thread,

You counted all my posts!?

the above quotation is the only reference/link you have provided “on your own,” and, guess what, it supports my position and not yours!

Guess what? You misunderstand and/or misquote my position even though I (and others) have repeated it many times. My (and others that don't agree with you) position is not that people can’t be undecided, it’s that undecided people don’t have an active belief in god(s), therefore they’re atheists. Bet you still don't get it.

Instead, your case has been nothing more than a dogmatic, and incessant repetition of the same opinion. Unless your opinion is occasionally sprinkled with some valid research, it is nothing more than unsubstantiated dogma.

My case has been essentially the same as other participants in this thread that don’t agree with you and Navigator.

Are you going to continue let others do your heavy lifting (Brian-M), or do you have anything original to bring to the table?

”Over 180 posts” isn't “heavy lifting”?

 

[ynot]

There is plenty of evidence to show that religious gods have never existed. And loads of evidence to show that such beliefs were simply the superstitions typical of ancient uneducated times.

Modern science is filled with mountains of evidence showing that all the ancient claims about gods such as the Christian Yahweh, are both untrue and mostly physically impossible.

So why haven't you seen the evidence of current science?

You presumably know that evolution shows how Yahweh did not make humans?

I’m not sure that Navigator and RickM realise that by being “indecisive” they're essentially saying they think god(s) might exist.

 

[ynot]

You shouldn't make assumptions. For example; by the way you spell "realise," I could assume you reside outside of North America, when, in fact, it may be a simple case of illiteracy.

In the RickM/Navigator dictionary is "I'm not sure" the same as "I assume"?

 

[Brian-M]

There is plenty of evidence to show that religious gods have never existed.

You're right! Who ever heard of a god attending church services, reading scriptures, or praying to themselves?

Gods don't seem a very religious bunch.

 

[ynot]

God(s) actually existing is less likely than a person having a single ticket in a million Lotto draws and winning first prize in each and every draw. Neither is going to actually ever happen. To conclude “God(s) don't exist” is the only rational, intellectually honest conclusion. Such a conclusion however doesn't make anyone an atheist any more than “I don't know if god(s) exist or not” does.

"Agnosticism is often expressed as an indication of an open mind - but it could equally be interpreted as the last refuge of a lazy mind, unwilling to pursue the arguments to one end or the other". - Laurence Twaddle (Making Sense of English in Religion')

 

[RickM]

God(s) actually existing is less likely than a person having a single ticket in a million Lotto draws and winning first prize in each and every draw. Neither is going to actually ever happen. To conclude “God(s) don't exist” is the only rational, intellectually honest conclusion. Such a conclusion however doesn't make anyone an atheist any more than “I don't know if god(s) exist or not” does.

"Agnosticism is often expressed as an indication of an open mind - but it could equally be interpreted as the last refuge of a lazy mind, unwilling to pursue the arguments to one end or the other". - Laurence Twaddle (Making Sense of English in Religion')

Hmmmm, fresh meat for a change. I'm not sure I understand that 4th sentence. It seems contradictory, and once again you quote something that doesn't help your case. Unless there is more, it sounds like the author is saying an agnostic cannot automatically be classified as an atheist. What say you about this?

 

[ynot]

Hmmmm, fresh meat for a change. I'm not sure I understand that 4th sentence. It seems contradictory, and once again you quote something that doesn't help your case. Unless there is more, it sounds like the author is saying an agnostic cannot automatically be classified as an atheist. What say you about this?

I say it may sound like that to you because you replace my case with your case and call it my case. According to my case the author isn't saying what you would like him to be saying. Sorry about that.

 

[RickM]

I say it may sound like that to you because you replace my case with your case and call it my case. According to my case the author isn't saying what you would like him to be saying. Sorry about that.

Then please explain to me what the author is saying. Because twice you have tried to quote someone in 187 posts, and twice you have shot yourself in the foot. Don't look now, but you are running out of feet!

 

[ynot]

Then please explain to me what the author is saying. Because twice you have tried to quote someone in 187 posts, and twice you have shot yourself in the foot. Don't look now, but you are running out of feet!

The quote . . .

"Agnosticism is often expressed as an indication of an open mind - but it could equally be interpreted as the last refuge of a lazy mind, unwilling to pursue the arguments to one end or the other". - Laurence Twaddle (Making Sense of English in Religion')

The author is simply suggesting agnosticism may not be an indication of an open mind, it may be may an indication of lazy mind. How do you twist that into? . . .

it sounds like the author is saying an agnostic cannot automatically be classified as an atheist.

What has an open or lazy mind got to do with classifying an agnostic as an atheist?

You made the claims that I've "quoted something that doesn't help my case" and “shot myself in the foot”, you get to provide the evidence to prove your claims. Wonder why I think you won’t?

 

[RickM]

God(s) actually existing is less likely than a person having a single ticket in a million Lotto draws and winning first prize in each and every draw. Neither is going to actually ever happen. To conclude “God(s) don't exist” is the only rational, intellectually honest conclusion. Such a conclusion however doesn't make anyone an atheist any more than “I don't know if god(s) exist or not” does.
"Agnosticism is often expressed as an indication of an open mind - but it could equally be interpreted as the last refuge of a lazy mind, unwilling to pursue the arguments to one end or the other". - Laurence Twaddle (Making Sense of English in Religion')

I thought you were quoting the author, but I now see this is your statement, using quotation marks as emphasis. Please explain what you mean by the above highlighted, because it seems contradictory to your argument.

 

[ynot]

I thought you were quoting the author, but I now see this is your statement, using quotation marks as emphasis.

So if anyone shot them self in the foot it was you. Even though the quoted text was in italics and a different paragraph, you thought non-italicised text in another paragraph was part of that quote. Amazing! (not in a good way)

Please explain what you mean by the above highlighted, because it seems contradictory to your argument.

You really need to learn to read not just sentences, but whole paragraphs in context. I said that a person saying “God(s) don’t exist”, and a person saying “I don’t know if god(s) exist or not” are both atheists because neither believe in god(s). And that neither is an atheist any more (or less) than the other. All this is fully consistence and non-contradictory with my argument.

Let’s see if your claim I shot myself in the foot in an earlier post is correct . . .

Should I take my philosophy lesson from philosopher William L. Rowe?

“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”

No unquoted text you can claim you thought was part of the quote there.

In over 180 posts you’ve made in this thread, the above quotation is the only reference/link you have provided “on your own,” and, guess what, it supports my position and not yours!
<snip> childish insults removed </snip>

My position argues that someone that neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God is an atheist, therefore an agnostic as described in the quote is an atheist. Fully supportive of my position. Please explain how the William L. Rowe quote supports your position and not mine.

 

[Dani]

God(s) actually existing is less likely than a person having a single ticket in a million Lotto draws and winning first prize in each and every draw. Neither is going to actually ever happen. To conclude “God(s) don't exist” is the only rational, intellectually honest conclusion. Such a conclusion however doesn't make anyone an atheist any more than “I don't know if god(s) exist or not” does.
"Agnosticism is often expressed as an indication of an open mind - but it could equally be interpreted as the last refuge of a lazy mind, unwilling to pursue the arguments to one end or the other". - Laurence Twaddle (Making Sense of English in Religion')

In the highlighted sentence you're implicitly using the so-called strict definition of "agnosticism". That is, you're using a set of definitions in which agnosticism is compatible with atheism, the former belonging to the axis of knowledge and the latter to the axis of belief. Indeed, you need no more than lack of belief to be classified as an atheist under that set of definitions.

In the second paragraph, you're using the so-called popular definition of "agnosticism". That is, you're using a set of definitions in which agnosticism is incompatible with atheism, because it's defined as a middle ground between atheism and theism and excludes both.

So, in order to be clear, you should first stick to one set of definitions and use it consistently. Then, you can meaningfully criticize agnosticism.

 

[ynot]

In the highlighted sentence you're implicitly using the so-called strict definition of "agnosticism". That is, you're using a set of definitions in which agnosticism is compatible with atheism, the former belonging to the axis of knowledge and the latter to the axis of belief. Indeed, you need no more than lack of belief to be classified as an atheist under that set of definitions.

Yes, that’s exactly my argument. If you’re not a theist you’re an atheist, regardless of whether you’re a strong atheist, weak atheist, indecisive atheist or any other kind of atheist. Others are arguing that only a strong atheist is an atheist.

In the second paragraph, you're using the so-called popular definition of "agnosticism".

In the second paragraph I’m merely quoting how someone else is using agnosticism. My whole post was in response to the discussion started by post #601 that was questioning how anyone cannot conclude “There is no god(s)” given what we currently know.

That is, you're using a set of definitions in which agnosticism is incompatible with atheism, because it's defined as a middle ground between atheism and theism and excludes both.

Not so. The set of definitions I'm using are that being indecisive, open minded, lazy minded, or anything that isn’t a belief in god(s) isn’t a middle ground and is being an atheist.

So, in order to be clear, you should first stick to one set of definitions and use it consistently. Then, you can meaningfully criticize agnosticism.

I do stick to one set of definitions and use it consistently - Not theist = atheist. Agnostic = not theist = atheist.

 

[RickM]

Should I take my philosophy lesson from philosopher William L. Rowe?

“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”

Let’s try and keep this simple. In your first reference above, are you quoting Rowe or someone else?

Regardless of your answer, how, in your opinion, does the above information support your contention that "agnostics are atheists in denial"?

 

[ynot]

Let’s try and keep this simple. In your first reference above, are you quoting Rowe or someone else?

Let me simplify it for you - "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God" - William L. Rowe

Regardless of your answer, how, in your opinion, does the above information support your contention that "agnostics are atheists in denial"?

I never said it did support my contention and that’s not the reason I included it in my post.

You on the other hand said (crap edited out) . . .

and, guess what, it supports my position and not yours!

Now please explain how the William L. Rowe quote supports your position and not mine and how I have “shot myself in the foot”.

 

[Navigator]

Let’s try and keep this simple. In your first reference above, are you quoting Rowe or someone else?

Regardless of your answer, how, in your opinion, does the above information support your contention that "agnostics are atheists in denial"?

Let’s try and keep this simple. In your first reference above, are you quoting Rowe or someone else?

Regardless of your answer, how, in your opinion, does the above information support your contention that "agnostics are atheists in denial"?

"Agnosticism is often expressed as an indication of an open mind - but it could equally be interpreted as the last refuge of a lazy mind, unwilling to pursue the arguments to one end or the other". - Laurence Twaddle (Making Sense of English in Religion')

ynot is claiming that there are some atheists who think they have an open mind but are just as likely hiding fearfully in their laziness of mind and are unwilling to pursue arguments to one end or the other. ( as atheist Twaddleists seem to believe...the argument has an end.)
It is a thinly disguised expression of contempt from haughty atheists aimed at who they consider to be fellow atheists who refuse to be drawn into arguing about the beliefs in the existence or non existence of god(s)



“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”


In other words, as interpreted by haughty atheists aimed at who they consider to be fellow atheists who refuse to be drawn into arguing about the beliefs in the existence or non existence of god(s) "atheists who think they have an open mind but are just as likely hiding fearfully in their laziness of mind and are unwilling to pursue arguments to one end or the other. "


The expression "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial" is an example of a catch cry of haughty atheists...'tis all.

*yawn*

 

[RickM]

I merely posted a quote from William L. Rowe. I made no claims or comments regarding the post and expressed no personal opinion.

You two sure are a pair. It’s almost like you’re the same person.

No, actually you quoted, verbatim and without attribution, the author of a Wikipedia article that was paraphrasing a quotation by William L. Rowe. Rowe's actual quote can be found at the end of the article under "References," Note #2. Now I understand why you don't like quoting things!