Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[ynot]

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!

I copied the quote from another site that may have copied it from Wikipedia. I had no idea where it came from originally. So what?

Are you going to keep avoiding this question? . . .

Now please explain how the William L. Rowe quote (regardless where it came from) supports your position and not mine and how I have “shot myself in the foot”.


ETA - "You ask Tony, 'what practical purpose does the term "agnostic" serve?', so I'm going to be cheeky here and note that Laurence Twaddle wrote in his book, 'Making Sense of English in Religion' that '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'.

Of course this doesn't apply to all agnostics, but from personal experience it does apply to many that I've met over the years, although maybe I just mix in the wrong circles." - sillybeliefs.com

 

[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')

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

<snip> 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.

No, actually, I think you need to write your sentences in such a way that they don't nullify and/or contradict everything you said before it.

 

[RickM]

I copied the quote from another site that may have copied it from Wikipedia. I had no idea where it came from originally. So what?

<snip>

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Please provide the other link.

 

[ynot]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Please provide the other link.

Already did. Here it is again . . .

"You ask Tony, 'what practical purpose does the term "agnostic" serve?', so I'm going to be cheeky here and note that Laurence Twaddle wrote in his book, 'Making Sense of English in Religion' that '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'.

Of course this doesn't apply to all agnostics, but from personal experience it does apply to many that I've met over the years, although maybe I just mix in the wrong circles." - sillybeliefs.com