This seems to be exactly the case. It’s almost like he’s got some sort of negative connotation associated with the term ‘atheist’ and he’d rather not be associated with ‘atheists’.
Weird.
I think that’s a fair question for Frank.
And if his answer is “I don’t believe in god(s) yet I don’t not believe in god(s)” then I guess a better question would be “How do you live your daily life with regards to moral choices you make, ethical choices you make, etc. Do you make these choices assuming that god(s) exists, or do you make them without any consideration of a god(s)?”
I don’t think it does, which has been details in several threads now.
[Mod Hat]
On that note, Frank apisa, if you wish to dispute this point further, please do it in this thread or one of the others you’ve used in the past. Don’t start any new ones on this atheist/agnostic issue.
[/Mod Hat]
I’m an agnostic too. I’m also an atheist. We are both agnostic atheists. So are most of the people you’re arguing with.
Actually his answer is a bit nonsensical.
One can not believe in any gods/god, but what does it mean to not not believe in gods/god unless there is a specific entity Frank believes in?
He’s attempting to argue that ‘i don’t know’ is a third position in the ‘do you believe in god or not’? question.
It makes utterly no sense. You don’t know whether you believe or not? Is that area of his brain cut off from the rest? When he thinks about the question does he go into a fog and cannot answer? When he thinks about it, does his mind just register a blank?
It’s a supercilious posture of neutrality adopted as a strategy to claim what he imagines is a “more objective than thou” high ground from which he can than attack straw atheists without ever having to take a position himself. it sounds like the major snafu for him in putting this plan into action is that the cardboard strong atheists he wants to argue with are in short supply, so he has to resort to trying to convince weak atheists that they’re really strong atheists (so that he can then attack them for being strong atheists). I don’t see a high chance of success for this tactic.
In a practical sense they are identical. Agnostics say that there is no active influence by god. If he existed, he is done with us. Atheists say there is simply no god. But for general purposes it is the same. Agnostics don’t take the final step.
Atheism is not a belief. it is the absence of one.
If this is his intention then he hasn’t been around many atheist MB’s, IMO, since in my experience (which may be limited, I admit), atheists go after other atheist claims frequently as well.
Max…thank you for this post.
I have addressed the distinction on several occasions…I have not avoided answering it at all. Allow me to do it again.
Let me simply set out my position again…and you can comment on how that effects the agnostics are atheists question.
I see NO evidence that gods DO NOT exist.
I do plenty reasons to include the possibility that gods exist when considering the question of “What is the true nature of the Reality of existence?” It is at least possible that all of what we call “existence” is merely an illusion created by a god of some sort. And I do not want to rule out that possibility any more than I want to include it without further question.
Conversely, I see NO evidence that gods DO exist.
I see no reason to suppose they MUST exist when considering the question of “What is the true nature of the Reality of existence?” It is possible that what we call “existence” is all there is…and that it is not an illusion of any sort. I do not want to rule out that possibility any more than I want to rule out the possibility that there is more to the situation than I am able to fathom.
I HAVE NO EVIDENCE EITHER WAY.
Now…I guess a case could be made that that means I am saying it is a 50-50 proposition…and if you must consider it that way, please feel free to do so. I prefer not to think of it as assigning probabilities at all…but you are free to do what you will with it.
Under no circumstances whatsoever do I think it logical to assume that since there is no need for gods (something I stipulate) or that there is no evidence for gods (another thing I stipulate)…that should lead me to conclude it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods.
All it leads me to is: I do not know if there are gods or not…and since I have no evidence in either direction, I cannot make a guess.
I suggest that perspective on my part is better…much, much, much better…described as agnostic than atheistic. I think, in fact, that describing it as atheistic because atheists want to command all the ground outside of theistic, is absurd.
I am an agnostic…I am not an atheist…or an agnostic atheist.
I am an agnostic.
I reject the self-serving definition used almost exclusively by debating atheists that “not believing in gods” automatically makes you an atheist.
I am trying hard as I can to understand why you people are so intent on getting us to be part of your group…but I just cannot.
I am not an atheist…and the only argument you people have that I am depends on a singular definition that almost only debating atheists use.
Stop using it…and we don’t have a problem.
I make my life decisions as though there are no gods.
What does that have to do with it?
I am not an atheist.
If you want to be both an agnostic and an atheist…great. Do so.
But I am not an atheist simply because debating atheists want to define me as one. Most of the rest of the world would not do that.
You’re an atheist. Trying to change the definition to a more self-serving one will not be a winning strategy.
Look up “null hypothesis.”
Do you see any evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist?
Actually, if you’re talking about a “Creator” god, then lack of necessity IS evidence of non-existence. Classic Occam.
So what? The question of atheism is on belief,** not on whether you have evidence**.
Also, what would evidence of god/gods not existing look like?
This isn’t as relevant as you might think - whether you believe in god/s or not doesn’t necessarily mean you have good reason to do so (or not).
Again, not necessarily relevant.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t answer the question of whether you believe or not.
I don’t believe this is the case, as in order to derive that proposition we would need to know a whole lot more. Again, this is not necessary anyway.
Okay…
Okay, you are an agnostic.
Do you, in spite of your agnosticism, believe in a god anyway?
If so, you are an agnostic theist.
if not you are an agnostic atheist.
Actually it’s better described as an agnostic atheist, since you don’t appear to have any belief in god and you have no knowledge of whether one exists or not.
Sure it is…you can tell from the music in this thread that it is not a belief!
NOT!
Ohhh honestly, do you really think any atheist on this board looked at your posts and said to himself “we gotta get this guy on our team, we’ll be unstoppable!”?
But you are what you are, you’re defined by what you believe not by what you prefer to call yourself. It’s a descriptor, not an affiliation.
Okay, you are an agnostic, now would you please answer me on whether you believe in god/s or not?
We’ve established the agnostic part - let’s move on to the meat of the disagreement.
Your prejudices are of no concern to the abuse of language that you are engaging in.
There is no ‘group’ for you to be a part of. We just want you to be honest, instead of appealing to your preconceived prejudices.
This is nonsense, you are attempting to redefine a word and then claiming it’s us that have the issue.
You are pretending that ‘agnosticism’ is a middle position.
it is not. I’m sorry, but you are in the wrong here. Accept it and move on.
I’m only trying to correct you, I really don’t care what you call yourself, but if you pretend that other people have to use terms with your specific definitions, then you are going to keep running into this sort of disagreement.
It makes you an atheist.
Atheism and agnosticism are apples and oranges. The first is an ontological claim, the second an epistemological one.
You might as well answer the question “Are you an atheist?” by saying “No, I’m a baseball fan!”
Claiming atheism is a belief, is a word game. A belief like a religion is far more encompassing. If I say I am an atheist, the god problem is over. The switch is flipped. If i say I believe in god, I put myself into a large system with many implications, like church , religious, leaders, a style of life and dealing with religious doctrine. The two uses do not equate.
EXACTLY.
This whole denial is bizarre.