Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Nonpareil]

One that better suits his argument I suspect. Talk about moving goal posts!

Yes, the proper question is one that doesn't straw man the position being taken.

And claiming moving goal posts is rather silly when I have stated from the beginning exactly what my position is.

 

[ehcks]

Brian-M already pointed it out. It's two separate questions: "Do you believe a god exists?" and "Do you believe that no god exists?"

Those seem like mutually contradictory questions except to apatheists; as well as those who've never heard of the concept of god, the people who really don't have a category.

 

[Elagabalus]

Well, no.

Had the maths major answered "no" then the German major could have pointed to Wiktionary which says,

Noun [edit]

Wäscheklammer f (genitive Wäscheklammer, plural Wäscheklammern)

1. peg

and say that the Maths major was wrong not to believe that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.

Clearly, the Maths major had no intention of denying the belief that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.

The German major would know that the Wiktionary link was suspect and would click immediately on the Duden online link (from your link) to find the real truth

http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Klammer

scroll down. (There's even a picture)

 

[Nonpareil]

Those seem like mutually contradictory questions

This is true. You can't answer "yes" to both.

You can, however, answer "no" to both.

 

[ynot]

Yes, the proper question is one that doesn't straw man the position being taken.

And claiming moving goal posts is rather silly when I have stated from the beginning exactly what my position is.

And when did this thread become all about you?

 

[ynot]

You can, however, answer "no" to both.

Is that the position of an agnostic atheist or not?

 

[Nonpareil]

And when did this thread become all about you?

Oh, yes, I forgot. I have to defend positions that are not my own. Of course. How silly of me.

Is that the position is that of an agnostic atheist or not?

That depends on the person in question.

An atheist may lack active belief in a god or possess active belief that no god exists. It has nothing to do with whether they are gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists believe that it can be known whether or not a god exists, but do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no". Agnostic atheists believe that it is impossible to know, but also do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no".

 

[ynot]

Oh, yes, I forgot. I have to defend positions that are not my own. Of course. How silly of me.



That depends on the person in question.

An atheist may lack active belief in a god or possess active belief that no god exists. It has nothing to do with whether they are gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists believe that it can be known whether or not a god exists, but do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no". Agnostic atheists believe that it is impossible to know, but also do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no".

Can the two “no” answers be made by anyone that isn’t ether an atheist or a subset of an atheist?

 

[Navigator]

Oh, yes, I forgot. I have to defend positions that are not my own. Of course. How silly of me.



That depends on the person in question.

An atheist may lack active belief in a god or possess active belief that no god exists. It has nothing to do with whether they are gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists believe that it can be known whether or not a god exists, but do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no". Agnostic atheists believe that it is impossible to know, but also do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no".

*Chuckles*

It is about beliefs really.

Atheists might not believe that god or gods exist, (in which case they lack belief in that department) but the subgroups of what is understood to be atheism can still be sorted through beliefs.

Some type atheists actively believe god or gods do not exist.
Some don't know.

Those (like myself) don;t know and thus lack belief - but are not actively believing that god or gods do not exist.

The position of 'I don't know' automatically means that there are no beliefs attached either way.

This position can be used also for questions such as 'does individual consciousness survive the death of the body?'

I am an "I don't knowist" in relation to such questions. This helps keep me from having to believe, because I see what belief does to individuals, regardless of what the beliefs are (for or against).

 

[Nonpareil]

Can the two “no” answers be made by anyone that isn’t ether an atheist or a subset of an atheist?

Not under the current formal definition of atheism, no.

Which, again, is the point. The distinction is useful, and lumping those who answer "no" to both questions together with those who only answer "no" to the first leads to unnecessary confusion.

No one disputes what the formal definition says. What is being questioned is the usefulness of that definition, and how it might be improved.

 

[arthwollipot]

There are no true agnostics.

But it's true that there are agnostic-theists and agnostic-atheists.

Both of those are "true" agnostics. You can use the two ideas independently of one another.

An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows.
An atheist does not believe. A theist believes.

You can say that you don't know without also having to simultaneously say whether you believe or not.

 

[psionl0]

The German major would know that the Wiktionary link was suspect and would click immediately on the Duden online link (from your link) to find the real truth

http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Klammer

scroll down. (There's even a picture)

If you are talking about swearing (OK, German isn't swearing ) then I have had this conversation countless times:

OP: "Do you think X?"
Me: "****** if I know".

If I answered "no" meaning "I haven't thought about it" the OP would inevitably interpret that as meaning that I think not X.

 

[ynot]

Not under the current formal definition of atheism, no.

Which, again, is the point. The distinction is useful, and lumping those who answer "no" to both questions together with those who only answer "no" to the first leads to unnecessary confusion.

No one disputes what the formal definition says. What is being questioned is the usefulness of that definition, and how it might be improved.

So you admit your “third category" doesn't currently exist because it’s covered by the atheist category with its subsets.

Answer "no" to both, and you are the third category.

Rather than admit your above statement is wrong, you now want to rewrite dictionaries to invent a new category so you can claim you were right.

Earlier in this thread you (and others) claimed “I don’t know” was a third category. The sole purpose of this thread is to debate the claim that “I don’t know” isn't a third category. Please stop derailing this thread and address this argument directly.

 

[ynot]

Both of those are "true" agnostics. You can use the two ideas independently of one another.

An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows.
An atheist does not believe. A theist believes.

You can say that you don't know without also having to simultaneously say whether you believe or not.

I'm saying the term “agnostic” is only useful when used in subsets. By itself the term “agnostic” is redundant because it’s essentially the same as “atheist”.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm saying the term “agnostic” is only useful when used in subsets. By itself the term “agnostic” is redundant because it’s essentially the same as “atheist”.

And yet a brief google search will find you several Christian Agnostic blogs, books, and groups.

By itself agnostic tells you nothing about belief.

By itself agnostic tells you nothing about atheism or theism.

 

[RickM]

ACT ONE: THE OPENING VOLLEY

Ok, let’s see…..On one side, we have arguably the greatest mind of the 20th century eloquently explaining (above) why there is a distinction between the two terms….and on the other side, we have Moe, Larry, and Curley from the Skeptics Forum explaining why there isn‘t...

ACT TWO: THE RECOVERY

.... There needs to be a distinction between those who actively believe there are no gods and those who simply don't have an opinion.

And that's why the central idea of this thread is largely pointless. Yes, according to the formal definition of atheism, those without an opinion one way or the other are atheists. But this definition is quickly becoming archaic. There needs to be a third category, but people who try to place themselves in the third category are being told "there's already a category for you", and that's not helping anyone. It just wastes everyone's time. It's technically correct, but it's not useful.

I dislike using "agnostic" as the label for this third category, as agnostic atheism and theism still exist even when this third category is allowed, and that just muddies the issue....

ACT THREE: RELIEVED OF DUTY

I’m beginning to feel like an uninvited guest in my own thread.

That third category would be agnostic-atheist. A subset of atheist. Already catered for

I thought you and some others were arguing for a category for "I don't know". What happened to that one?

Now I can't even see any goal posts.

ACT FOUR: THE FINALE (Moe, Larry, & Curley = MLC)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: So, you're saying that Agnosticism = Atheism?

MLC: Yes, that's exactly what we're saying....technically speaking, of course.

Me: Oh, of course.....So, technically speaking, wouldn't that make Agnostic-Atheism redundant?

MLC: ....... (crickets cherping) ....... Gee, we didn't think of that...dahhhh, but in our defense, we plan to come up with a new word for the 3rd category to replace Agnostic.

Me: Have you checked with Webster yet on that?

MLC: Well, technically no.

Me: Would you like me to call 'em on your behalf when you're ready?

MLC: Well, swell, yea ....that's really nice of you.

Me: No problem....anytime.

Einstein: (peeing himself, somewhere in the cosmos)

 

[Elagabalus]

So you admit your “third category" doesn't currently exist because it’s covered by the atheist category with its subsets.


Rather than admit your above statement is wrong, you now want to rewrite dictionaries to invent a new category so you can claim you were right.

Earlier in this thread you (and others) claimed “I don’t know” was a third category. The sole purpose of this thread is to debate the claim that “I don’t know” isn't a third category. Please stop derailing this thread and address this argument directly.

Let's see. You create a thread (and category) that's entirely subjective and defined by you and you alone and then you get pissed when no one wants to be shoehorned into your little box. You win the internet!!

 

[Belz...]

Context is necessary to comprehend English. If YOU answer "no", it could be honest.

Dinwar, if I don't know anything about an issue, I can't possibly hold a belief about it, can I ? So if you ask me "do you believe X about this issue", the only answer I can give is "I don't know anything about this issue, so no."

That's an honest answer for everybody, not just me. This "I don't know, so I don't hold a belief but I also don't hold a disbelief" is just PC nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

Well, no.

Had the maths major answered "no" then the German major could have pointed to Wiktionary which says,

Noun [edit]

Wäscheklammer f (genitive Wäscheklammer, plural Wäscheklammern)

1. peg

and say that the Maths major was wrong not to believe that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.

Clearly, the Maths major had no intention of denying the belief that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.

But that's not what lack of belief means. It means you don't hold a positive belief about this statement.

 

[psionl0]

But that's not what lack of belief means. It means you don't hold a positive belief about this statement.

See also post#252.