I think the hard atheism idea is just an invention put out by religious people. Atheists don’t believe in God because they see no evidence of God. But if evidence appeared they would change their beliefs. No atheist would look an angel in the eye and deny that angels exist. The idea that atheists are so stubborn that they would deny supernatural beings in the face of actual evidence is, as I said, an idea put out by religious people to discredit atheists
As for those who think agnosticism are just atheism light, I say you’re wimps. You don’t believe in God but you’re afraid of pissing him off. Figure out what you believe and make a stand. Believe in God and start going to church or don’t believe in God and start calling yourself an atheist. Stop trying to be on everybody’s side by equivicating somewhere in the middle.
Since you have missed the point of what I was saying, I don’t think you made a good comparison.
But the irony doesn’t work, and the result is nonsense. That’s not the case if you define agnosticism as a type of atheism.
They’re the topic of this discussion.
That would be stupid. What I am attempting to explain to you is that atheism, agnosticism, and theism are all descriptions of people’s views on gods. We are discussing the value of those different descriptions. Your response to that is to say ‘nobody knows for sure, so they are all agnostics.’ The problem is that while nobody has definitive proof of their answers, what you are saying is wrong because it is not a good description of their beliefs.
I guess you’re responding to where I said that is a useful term because so many people are theists? I didn’t infer having the term would change my beliefs. Having the term is useful because it’s a quick and easy way of telling others when it is called for (like in these sort of threads) that you differ from the majority of society in that you don’t believe in the existence of gods.
I obviously agree with most of this, but I am sure that there are athiests who would look evidence in the eyes and just deny it. We see that now with theists who insist that the world is 6,000 years old.
I’ll simplify this for you since you aren’t getting it. Human is a useful term because there are other species. When we use it, we are distinguishing ourselves from other creatures and inanimate objects. When we talk about religious terms such as agnostic, theist, etc., we already know only humans have these concepts. If we’re all agnostic, how is it a term that would ever be useful? Why would anyone tell anyone they’re agnostic in a discussion such as this if we’re all agnostic? The response would just be, “Duh, we all are.”
I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Why would you believe I think I’m smarter than Huxley? You just posted what another poster said about why he believes Huxley coined the term agnostic. You’re not making any sense.
Do you spend so much time and effort on everything else that you don’t “give a rat’s ass” about?
As I responded to you. What’s your point?
This is hilarious given your next statement:
Bullshit. You think you’re the first christian to come in here and pretend to be totally neutral on christianity while simultaneously trying to discredit atheism? Hint: you’re not. Incidentally, didn’t your god have something to say about telling the truth?
Bullshit. Pure and unadulterated at that. There’s no “blind guessing” involved in denying man-made gods whose very descriptions defy both the laws of logic and physics. Simple common sense will tell you that.
Beyond that I have a problem with the classic definition of agnosticism as it is self-contradictory in the sense that it makes definitive claims on what can and cannot be known. Ironically, a statement of absolute truth if I ever read one.
In short, how can anyone know what is knowable or not other than at present time? Other than guessing that is.
Right. And the theists keep telling me that simple common sense will tell me that a god has to exist.
Under any circumstances I was not discussing man-made gods.
Take that up with the Free Dictionary.
I have been very, very careful to explain that there is absolutely no way I can possibly KNOW what can or cannot be known. I know (to the extent that I can know anything) that I do not know the answers to questions about the Reality of existence…that I cannot rule in or out things like gods. But at no point have I ever suggested that it is unknowable to everyone else. In fact, in one thread, I fought against that definition emphatically.
I suspect that definition is the result of a lazy lexicographer.
So like I said…take your problem up with the Free Dictionary.
But what is your position on 11 foot tall unknowable pink bunnies whose existence, by definition, is unknowable?
Your argument, ultimately, is circular. If you posit that there might be something whose existence can’t be known, then of course you can’t know if it exists. But why would someone take that position to start with? It’s because we have a tradition of deities whose existence can be known; they create floods, return people from the dead, cause lightning, and appear as burning bushes. Somehow you are taking the position that while you don’t believe in deities that *can * be known, you aren’t so sure about deities whose existence *can’t *be known. Does that make any kind of sense to you?
If the word agnostic means “to not know if there are gods or if there are no gods” (one possible form of the definition)…why do you suppose it is erroneous for me to guess that we are all agnostic?
That is all I did!
It was an attempt at humorous irony in reply to another post suggesting that agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism.
Q: Do you know atheists have no sense of humor?
A: No, but if you hum a few bars, I might be able to fake it!
WTF does what theists tell you have to do with RedFury said? Are you here just to fuck with everyone or what?
So you’re talking about a real gods? The ones you say you have no belief in? Gotcha.
Didn’t you say that Christians would fall under the heading of agnostic too? What definition of agnostic this time do you expect Don’t Call Me Shirley to use to understand what you mean by that statement?
Question, binary: do you have a belief that there is a God. Choose one Yes/No.
If ‘Yes’, you are a theist. If ‘No’, then you are an a-theist.
If you claim that “maybe” you believe there there is a God, you do not understand what the word “believe” means. If you say that you are not sure or do not know if there is a God or not, then by definition you do not believe that there is one, since you do not have the belief that there is one. That means you are an a-theist.
A-gnosis is not a separate group. It overlaps with theism and atheism but has no separate identity, at all. The pose that it is somehow superior to both is risible as it is distinct from neither.
