• 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

psionl0 said:
Exactly.

Yet to certain members here, it is important that "atheist" mean a neutral position. They want to be able to say "there is no god" without being seen to express a belief.
Click to expand...
They want to be neutral, hard atheists? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Exactly.

Yet to certain members here, it is important that "atheist" mean a neutral position. They want to be able to say "there is no god" without being seen to express a belief.
Click to expand...

I think you're confused about what people are saying. There's nothing neutral about it. It's just a matter of definition. You said "exactly" to my definition. By that definition, saying "I have no idea", which is distinct from "yes" is therefore "no".
 
There are no gods. This is my belief. This is also my opinion. This is also as close to a fact as it can be based on the total evidence presented in favor of the existence of gods.

Re the "no opinion"/"lack of knowledge" agrument above - it is all semantics. I seriously doubt that there is an adult human on this planet who has not been exposed to the concept of god(s) sufficiently to form some sort of opinion. All societies are overrun with the concepts of their particular deities.
 
Would anyone answer these questions differently?

(1) “Do you believe a god or gods exist?”

(2) “Are you a theist?”
 
ynot said:
Would anyone answer these questions differently?

(1) “Do you believe a god or gods exist?”

(2) “Are you a theist?”
Click to expand...

Anyone who misheard the second question and thought you asked "are you atheist". :)
 
ynot said:
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”.
Click to expand...
There's been almost 300 posts in this thread explaining to you why you are wrong, but it's okay if you want to hold an opinion on the meanings of terms that goes contrary to those of everybody else, as long as you stop complaining about misunderstandings.
 
arthwollipot said:
There's been almost 300 posts in this thread explaining to you why you are wrong, but it's okay if you want to hold an opinion on the meanings of terms that goes contrary to those of everybody else, as long as you stop complaining about misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
I make that statement using the definition of an atheist as “Having no belief in a god or gods” or “Not having a belief in a god or gods”. But I don't think it matters what definition is used

Please give an example of an agnostic that has a belief in a god or gods (not an agnostic subset. i.e. agnostic theist).

Are you saying that none of those almost 300 posts (including my own) agree with me?

What? . . Complain? . . . Me?. You must have me confused for someone else, shirley.
 
Last edited:
 
psionl0 said:
What's the point? I will say that the following are a sample of the ways in which you vary the definition of "atheist" while you will say that they are examples of rock solid definitions of the word
So, I win.
Click to expand...
Well we might do as you say if any of these posts you have provided links to were examples of me actually redefining the term “atheist” and moving goal posts.

psionl0 said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10501420#post10501420
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10501485#post10501485
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10501498#post10501498
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10502691#post10502691
Click to expand...

Well I guess at least you started the process so I will complete it for you . . .

Belz... said:
That said, atheism has the same definition it had when the thread started.
Click to expand...
Did you notice the word “atheism”? (I hilited it for you)
psionl0 said:
Not so. Even Ynot has shifted the goal post several times on that one.
Click to expand...

Your "proof" begins . . .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10501420#post10501420
ynot said:
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”
Click to expand...
Please hilite where “atheism” has been redefined and where goal posts have been moved. Also hilite where atheism has even been mentioned.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10501485#post10501485
ynot said:
True. It should have read something like – “Agnostics that claim they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God are atheists by default as they don’t have a belief in the existence of God.”
Click to expand...
Please hilite where “atheism” has been redefined and where goal posts have been moved.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10501498#post10501498
ynot said:
I have already admitted to my many mistake and have tried to correct them to suit my original intent.
Click to expand...
Please hilite where “atheism” has been redefined and where goal posts have been moved. Also hilite where atheism has even been mentioned.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10502691#post10502691
ynot said:
Agnosticism is broader than agnostic. There can be agnostic theists and atheists.

Agnostic, as in - I can’t decide to be a theist because I don’t accept mere beliefs and I require knowledge of a god or gods, is obviously a synonym for atheist.
Click to expand...
Please hilite where “atheism” has been redefined and where goal posts have been moved.

If and when you hilite and explain where and how I have redefined the term “atheist” in any of these posts, and where and how I have “Moved the goal posts”. I will happily declare you the winner. Until then the flag of success you wave is a white one.

I think a retraction is in order. I don't care much for apologies.
 
Last edited:
Let us play science and learning:

Someone: I got this idea that agnosticism is atheism in denial.
Me: Now turn it into a testable claim subject to the process of falsification.
Result: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10509134&postcount=293
Someone (to the effect of any functional equivalent answer): I don't care.
Me: Fair enough. You can do that, but it doesn't make true that agnosticism is atheism in denial.
Someone: Are you claiming that I am wrong?
Me: No.
Someone: So I am right?
Me: No.
...

Hi ynot :) Do you want to learn? If so, then you ought to learn the connection between falsification and "being wrong".
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Let us play science and learning:

Someone: I got this idea that agnosticism is atheism in denial.
Me: Now turn it into a testable claim subject to the process of falsification.
Result: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10509134&postcount=293
Someone (to the effect of any functional equivalent answer): I don't care.
Me: Fair enough. You can do that, but it doesn't make true that agnosticism is atheism in denial.
Someone: Are you claiming that I am wrong?
Me: No.
Someone: So I am right?
Me: No.
...

Hi ynot :) Do you want to learn? If so, then you ought to learn the connection between falsification and "being wrong".
Click to expand...
Well I guess if this post of your is an example of your "science and learning" I should sit up and take notice (NOT)
Tommy Jeppesen said:
One of the positions in play in this thread is that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. So it follows that there are no agnostic theists, but that is not true.

So for this thread and the other thread the claim, that an agnostic is an atheist in denial, is not true.
Click to expand...
Show and hilite the posts or posts where anyone (except yourself) has claimed that agnosticism is a subset of atheism and not also a subset of theism. If your reading and comprehension is so abysmal why would I ever want to learn anything from you?
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Martin Gardner.
Click to expand...
Theist – “A person that has a belief in a god or gods”

Therefore if Martin Gardner (or anyone) had a belief in a god or gods he was a Theist.

If Martin Gardner (or anyone) also defined himself as an agnostic then he was an agnostic-theist.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist. Atheism doesn't require knowledge of the non-existence of gods, it merely doesn't accept unsubstantiated theistic beliefs that claim gods actually exist. Theism doesn't require knowledge of the actual existence of gods, it merely accepts unsubstantiated beliefs that claim gods actually exist.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between know and believe.

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
Click to expand...

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

With regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom