Can we admit that agnosticism is the logical way of thinking?

[crowTrobot]

So let's say you're a pedophile, but you call yourself a youth-mentor.

What would the dictionary say?

different dictionarys say different things.

atheism technically simply means the rejection of theism (against theism). from there it's a matter of personal interpretation.

 

[PapaG]

atheism has never meant exclusively a positive claim that no possible god(s) exist. it has never been used exclusively in that manner, and it is easy to find definitions and descriptions that include simple lack of belief in a god. it's impractical and silly to insist on your specific definition when the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists now and in the past have meant something different by it. you're just stubbornly propping up a straw man so you can rant against it.

I don't know why you'd be so defensive toward something that you don't believe in, apparently. You're redefining atheism. I'm simply stating that I'm OK with that, as long as you recognize that me as an agnostic, and you as an atheist, have nothing in common in terms of our thoughts on deities and theism.

 

[PapaG]

different dictionarys say different things.

atheism technically simply means the rejection of theism (against theism)..

Yep. As an absolute rejection. Finally you agree.

from there it's a matter of personal interpretation

Only if you want to redefine an absolute.

 

[Denny Crane]

there are multiple subjective working definitions of atheism and always have been.

and in any case what people call themselves to define who they are determines what the dictionary says, not the other way round.

Nazis call themselves socialists.

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't know why you'd be so defensive toward something that you don't believe in, apparently.

atheists in general are defensive because your strict definition is employed by theists (and you) in straw man arguments claiming atheism requires faith etc.

You're redefining atheism. I'm simply stating that I'm OK with that, as long as you recognize that me as an agnostic, and you as an atheist, have nothing in common in terms of our thoughts on deities and theism.

actually we have ALMOST EVERYTHING in common, likely with only one exception - how we view the possible existence specifically of Yahweh. that's the heart of my point.

even by your definition you're (presumably) an atheist when it comes to Ra, Thor, Zeuss etc.

even though i don't believe in them by your definition i'm openly agnostic when it comes to deism, pantheism etc.

most non-believers (including you) are both atheist and agnostic. in fact any believer who admits that faith is required is both a theist and an agnostic. those words describe different aspects of belief, not different sides of arbitrary dividing lines on a belief scale.

 

[crowTrobot]

Yep. As an absolute rejection.

rejection of the evidence for theism. rejection of the notion that theism is in any way justified. that's different than actually claiming the knowledge that no possible version of god exists. very few people do that. the latter definition doesn't have much practical use, which is why most people just attach "strong" and "weak" or other descriptive qualifiers when they want to differentiate.

 

[crowTrobot]

Nazis call themselves socialists.

you're an atheist, denny. accept it

 

[Further]

rejection of the evidence for theism. rejection of the notion that theism is in any way justified. that's different than actually claiming the knowledge that no possible version of god exists. very few people do that. the latter definition doesn't have much practical use, which is why most people just attach "strong" and "weak" or other descriptive qualifiers when they want to differentiate.

Yep

 

[Denny Crane]

you're an atheist, denny. accept it

I have faith there is no god.

 

[magnifier661]

The evolution part of cells aren't the question in my mind. I am talking about how the cell came and programmed without life programming it? Who or what made the egg?

 

[magnifier661]

I have faith there is no god.

Now that is an atheist statement. An agnostic would say "I don't know if there is a God, but the evidence I've seen so far doesn't sway me to believe there is one"

 

[Denny Crane]

Now that is an atheist statement. An agnostic would say "I don't know if there is a God, but the evidence I've seen so far doesn't sway me to believe there is one"

 

[magnifier661]

atheism has never meant exclusively a positive claim that no possible god(s) exist. it has never been used exclusively in that manner, and it is easy to find definitions and descriptions that include simple lack of belief in a god. it's impractical and silly to insist on your specific definition when the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists now and in the past have meant something different by it. you're just stubbornly propping up a straw man so you can rant against it.

Is it strawman to say that there are different possibilities of what 1 + 1 =? Basically you are adjusting what the form atheism truly means. This isn't semantics. This is actually "black and white". We aren't talking perception. If you are atheist "without theism"; that is pretty clear that you do not believe in any theism; therefor you do not believe in any God.

I know so many atheists that refute God no matter what. Maris is the purest atheist in this forum. The rest if you are just tossing a label around and adjusting it to suit your argument.

Problem is, a true atheist really doesn't have absolute proof; therefor their belief is an act if faith. They believe without evidence.

 

[magnifier661]

I knew it! Lol

I was expanding on the joke. I already know you are agnostic

 

[Denny Crane]

Is it strawman to say that there are different possibilities of what 1 + 1 =?

It's outright silly to say that.

 

[crowTrobot]

Is it strawman to say that there are different possibilities of what 1 + 1 =? Basically you are adjusting what the form atheism truly means. This isn't semantics. This is actually "black and white". We aren't talking perception. If you are atheist "without theism"; that is pretty clear that you do not believe in any theism; therefor you do not believe in any God.

- i DON'T believe in any god
- i think there is effectively zero chance Yahweh exists
- i think knowledge of whether a creator in the generic sense exists or not is impossible

i'm an agnostic atheist, as are the vast majority of non-believers

 

[crowTrobot]

I know so many atheists that refute God no matter what.

i'm sure almost all of them are refuting belief in god, not actually arguing for the strong form of atheism.

 

[magnifier661]

- i DON'T believe in any god
- i think there is effectively zero chance Yahweh exists
- i think knowledge of whether a creator in the generic sense exists or not is impossible

i'm an agnostic atheist, as are the vast majority of non-believers

And since you have zero empirical evidence that God does not exist; you base this thinking on faith. As an agnostic you base it on lack of evidence that God exists, but don't discount it could be a possibility.

See the major difference?

I am going to claim I am a black because I love rap music. Even though I'm not racially black; I love soul food and their culture. I am a black-Asian-American. I expect the same minority treatment and benefits please!

 

[Denny Crane]

i don't really care about semantics. the point is peoples' belief or disbelief isn't black and white like you are implying. it's not as simple as "god" = believe/disbelieve/don't know. there's a continuous spectrum of level of confidence and view of probability that will vary widely for various specific definitions of what you mean by god, even for individuals. i would certainly claim to have knowledge that yahweh does not exist. i would not make that claim for a deistic creator.

Why do you think the Supreme Court considers Secular Humanism to be a religion?

Edit: I'm not saying they ruled it is one, just that they consider it behaves like a religion in many aspects.

 

[crowTrobot]

And since you have zero empirical evidence that God does not exist; you base this thinking on faith.

what do you mean by God? i base my view of the improbability of the existence of Yahweh entirely on empirical evidence.

if you mean god in the generic sense, it does not require faith to lack belief in something you don't think there is evidence for either way. lack of belief in what you don't/can't know is obviously the logical default position. you still aren't differentiating between lack of belief and conviction for some reason.

 

[crowTrobot]

Why do you think the Supreme Court considers Secular Humanism to be a religion?

they would treat any non-profit organization the same as an organized religion. that has to do with the behavior of organizations. it doesn't speak to the similarities of belief systems.

 

[magnifier661]

what do you mean by God? i base my view of the improbability of the existence of Yahweh entirely on empirical evidence.

if you mean god in the generic sense, it does not require faith to lack belief in something you don't think there is evidence for either way. lack of belief in what you don't/can't know is obviously the logical default position. you still aren't differentiating between lack of belief and conviction for some reason.

Yep it's called agnostic

 

[Denny Crane]

they would treat any non-profit organization the same as an organized religion. that has to do with the behavior of organizations. it doesn't speak to the similarities of belief systems.

I don't think that's right. The Secular Humanist organizations are specifically qualifying as religions under the law. Not as 501(c) organizations that have nothing to do with religion.

It is an alternative (to) religion. It must occupy the same spaces in society (e.g. Schools, etc.).

It's "blasphemy" to acknowledge other religions within its confines. The push to drive religion from the public square smacks of jihad.

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't think that's right. The Secular Humanist organizations are specifically qualifying as religions under the law. Not as 501(c) organizations that have nothing to do with religion.

It is an alternative (to) religion. It must occupy the same spaces in society (e.g. Schools, etc.).

It's "blasphemy" to acknowledge other religions within its confines. The push to drive religion from the public square smacks of jihad.

people certainly can and do make atheism into a religion. that doesn't mean the belief system is the same. i'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Denny Crane]

people certainly can and do make atheism into a religion. that doesn't mean the belief system is the same.

The Buddhist and Christian belief systems aren't the same, either. Your point is?

 

[crowTrobot]

The Buddhist and Christian belief systems aren't the same, either. Your point is?

you tell me yours first : )

 

[Denny Crane]

you tell me yours first : )

I think SH acts like a competing religion, and it gets unfair benefits from the government. Beyond tax exempt status - to the point of using taxpayer money to build the bazillions of schools where it's taught.

 

[crowTrobot]

I think SH acts like a competing religion, and it gets unfair benefits from the government. Beyond tax exempt status - to the point of using taxpayer money to build the bazillions of schools where it's taught.

if your implication is that atheism itself IS like religious belief, i disagree. people can go all activist with almost anything they want and turn it into something like a religion, which could be what SH groups are doing to warrant being classified as one.

that doesn't mean it requires religious-like faith to be an atheist. different subject.

 

[Further]

Mags, I think the root of your misunderstanding of atheist/agnostic and all the permutations is that in your life everything is filtered through a lens of faith. To think about someone without faith doesn't even compute or make sense to you. So you try and come with ways in which an atheist has lives a life of faith just as you do. But, for most atheists, we don't. There are exceptions for sure, and I would say Maris is an example of one who is so unyielding in his views that those views have become a dogma and faith is needed in that case. I could be wrong, and perhaps he will refute my assertion. But for most atheists, there is no faith required to not believe. We are simply skeptical, and unless something makes sense, we tend to not believe it. It does not mean we know we are correct, just that there isn't ample evidence to even strike up a rudimentary belief that it could be true. If I told that there was a magical camel in another realm that shot pudding out its humps, would it take any faith to not believe it? no. it's just a dumb statement. Do you know that pudding camels don't exist in any realm? no, although the likelihood is astronomically small.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Mags, I think the root of your misunderstanding of atheist/agnostic and all the permutations is that in your life everything is filtered through a lens of faith. To think about someone without faith doesn't even compute or make sense to you. So you try and come with ways in which an atheist has lives a life of faith just as you do. But, for most atheists, we don't. There are exceptions for sure, and I would say Maris is an example of one who is so unyielding in his views that those views have become a dogma and faith is needed in that case. I could be wrong, and perhaps he will refute my assertion. But for most atheists, there is no faith required to not believe. We are simply skeptical, and unless something makes sense, we tend to not believe it. It does not mean we know we are correct, just that there isn't ample evidence to even strike up a rudimentary belief that it could be true. If I told that there was a magical camel in another realm that shot pudding out its humps, would it take any faith to not believe it? no. it's just a dumb statement. Do you know that pudding camels don't exist in any realm? no, although the likelihood is astronomically small.