To say nothing of the fact that the literal reading of the centuries old definition makes no sense. All we keep getting is 'It’s not about lacking belief, it’s about having no god or gods!" But when pressed on what exactly he thinks that means, we get back to ‘it means having no god or gods!!!’
Even with the etymology question, it’s clear as crystal that not having any god or gods is the same as not believing in any god or gods. Otherwise what does it mean, that one doesn’t have a god tacked up to their wall to replace their Twilight poster? That you were going to have a god come with you to the supermarket and hold your shopping list, but he bailed on you at the last moment?
As many, many folks have pointed out, the atheist/theist dichotomy is about belief or lack of belief in God/gods/whatever. The gnosis/agnostic dichotomy is about whether or not one feels that proof in God/gods/whatever is viable. They’re not mutually exclusive. We have agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, hard atheists and various flavors of fundamentalist theists.
I suspect we wouldn’t even be having this argument if the OP didn’t keep mangling terminology while talking about how silly he thinks atheists are and about how awesome he is for not being an atheist or a theist. If he admitted he was an atheist like the rest of the atheists out there, it’d be much harder for him to act as if he’s quite superior to all the atheists.
I think you’re going in the right direction here.
It becomes a question of claim of a “belief” vs. claim of a “fact”.
Beliefs are personal. They can be challenged and discussed but by nature they can never proven wrong or right since they only apply to the person stating their belief.
Facts or knowledge however are universal. They apply to everyone. They answer the question without any doubt.
So does the theist “believe” there is a god,
or does the theist “know” there is a god?
I suppose it depends on which theist you ask.
Theists who “believe” there is a god don’t really bother me. It’s their belief, it’s personal, whatever floats their boat and let’s them sleep at night.
It’s the theist who claims to “know” there is a god that gets under my skin. Their knowledge or claim of fact is complete b.s.
So it goes with the atheist.
Dose the atheist “believe” there is no god,
or does the atheist purport to “know” there is no god?
Again I think it depends on which atheist you ask.
So I guess it becomes a question of semantics and definitions.
If you don’t “believe” in a god, but acknowlege you don’t really “know” if there is a god, does that make you an atheist? Or are you an agnostic?
Not believing in a god or gods is the definition of being an atheist.
Agnostic regards knowledge not belief.
I have no idea of the relevance of this?
I asked you this in another thread and got a silly answer so I’ll try again – where do you stand on the existence of grutlwergn? Are you agnostic about their existence or not?
No one, I believe, has accused Frank of believing there are no gods, so no one has claimed he is a hard atheist. I think we can agree on that.
I don’t think it makes any sense to say that agnosticism is about not knowing as opposed to the belief that we can’t know. Few atheists claim to know there are no gods, and many theists don’t even claim to know there is one, but in fact believe on faith. By the “don’t know yet” criteria, nearly everyone is an agnostic except those who think God has chatted with them.
But I also reject the contention that lack of belief in gods is equivalent to belief in no gods. Even if the conclusion is unsupported, people still do it, and actually it depends strongly on what one’s criteria for belief is.
Tangent? We finally got past all the smokescreens and to the bottom of what your fundamental misconception on the issue was, and you just start a new thread so you can start talking about dictionaries and ancient greeks again? That’s just plain cheating.
So you want to see if “something new develops”. When it does, are you just gonna call it a tangent and start over again.
But the word implies that they place faith above reason - and its usually a slam. So its a word I’d prefer not get used for “agnostic theists.” But as this whole thing shows, use it how you will.
What bugs me is the shifting goalposts. I’ve seen folks insist that they, as atheists, do not hold the belief that God does not exist, but then butt in on another discussion to say something like “Well, since God doesn’t exist, the whole thing is moot”.
I think if I were to ask most people…millions upon millions of them…the following question:
If I were to say that I do not believe in gods…I also do not believe there are no gods…and I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction…
…would you describe me as an atheist or an agnostic…
…almost every one of them would say, “agnostic.”
The few…very few who would say “atheist” or “agnostic atheist” would be debating atheists. They are about the only ones who use that self-serving definition, Marley.
As for the “current usage” of the word…except for debating atheists…almost everyone else that I know uses “atheist” to denote someone who denies the existence of God…or who “believes” (actively) that there are no deities.
Several dictionaries define it as “someone who denies the existence of God (gods)” or who “believes there are no deities.”; Merriam-Webster; Cambridge; Webster’s New World College…to name a few. Almost every other one uses the “denial of the existence of gods” as one of the characteristics.
So…the notion that it is generally accepted to mean “nothing more than not believing in gods” is tenuous at best.
And when given a choice between atheist and agnostic for individuals expressing the take I have on things…almost 100% of non-atheists would go with agnostic for me…not atheist.
So if you are really arguing for “current usage” as a standard…you people really should not be trying to designate me an atheist.
“My friends” and “almost everyone I know” is not a cite on current usage, Frank apisa. You’ve already been presented with a better one.
This demonstrates … nothing. Because the contention some of us (including me) have put forward is that agnosticism is a type of atheism, because agnostics don’t believe in gods either. Nobody is arguing you are not an agnostic. Some of us are saying that by virtue of being an agnostic, you’re also an atheist.
I’d love to comment on this, Chronos…because I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but a moderator warned me that speculating on this kind of thing was off-limits.
This does not mean that the probability of existence is the same as non-existyence. There are an infinite number of hypothetical things which could possibly exist, but which we have no evidence for. Do you think that merely being able to imagine something exists gives it a 50/50 probability of existing?
The unicorn question is perfectly valid in this thread. It’s not a change of topic, it’s the same topic. Unless you’re willing to explain if and why you believe that hypothetical skygods have any more default probability of existence than unicorns or elves or an infinite number of other hypothetical entities I can pull out of my ass all day, then your argument is incomplete and unsupported.
I actually think that is a pretty good description of my particular leanings. You may not have seen my take on it on the boards before because I don’t get into religion too often. My take on atheists is that they actually do have a belief - they believe there is no God (and sometimes as rabidly as theists). I don’t have that belief - I have a lack of belief. Theists and atheists are both more assertive in their beliefs than agnostics, I think - I reserve all judgement on the subject because I don’t have enough information.
For Dio - I have no proof that unicorns exist, but I haven’t seen the entire world.
Can you provide an example of someone doing this – that is, can you provide an example of the same person saying that gods can’t been disproven, and then sayingthat gods don’t exist.
I think the kind of glib response you’re talking about tends more to specific supernatural claims (i.e. “Well, since miracles/psychics/ghosts don’t exist…”) than God, per se.
More importantly, it’s a rationalization. Rather than being able to clearly elaborate on an actual epistemological argument, it becomes something more like ‘Atheists are icky and people don’t like them, and theists believe something I don’t, so I’m neither. Oh, and I’m smarter and wiser than both because I don’t understand how proof and refutation work!’
Since the OP doesn’t understand either the null hypothesis or the burden of proof and cannot delineate between some concepts that he dismisses out of hand and others he insists that the null hypothesis is invalid for, the only real conclusion is that there is no active methodology at work besides “no no no no no!”
I am not assigning probability to this and I have already mentioned that. The only reason I checked that box in the other thread…was because that was the only option that came close to my position…which I then posted as a response.
I have decided independently that what we call “existence” could just BE (and always has BEEN)…or it could be a manifestation of a god or gods.
I have no evidence for or against the existence of gods…so I am not able to make a meaningful guess in either direction.
I see no evidence that gods are impossible…I see no evidence that they are necessary.
I cannot rule them in or out…and I cannot make a meaningful guess in either direction.
I also suggest that if you were actually applying the logic you atheists are always bragging about…you would come to that same conclusion.
