Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

ynot said:
One that better suits his argument I suspect. Talk about moving goal posts!
Click to expand...

Yes, the proper question is one that doesn't straw man the position being taken.

And claiming moving goal posts is rather silly when I have stated from the beginning exactly what my position is.
 
psionl0 said:
Well, no.

Had the maths major answered "no" then the German major could have pointed to Wiktionary which says,

Noun [edit]

Wäscheklammer f (genitive Wäscheklammer, plural Wäscheklammern)
  1. peg
and say that the Maths major was wrong not to believe that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.

Clearly, the Maths major had no intention of denying the belief that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.
Click to expand...

The German major would know that the Wiktionary link was suspect and would click immediately on the Duden online link (from your link) to find the real truth

http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Klammer

scroll down. (There's even a picture)
 
Nonpareil said:
Yes, the proper question is one that doesn't straw man the position being taken.

And claiming moving goal posts is rather silly when I have stated from the beginning exactly what my position is.
Click to expand...
And when did this thread become all about you?
 
ynot said:
And when did this thread become all about you?
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, I forgot. I have to defend positions that are not my own. Of course. How silly of me.

ynot said:
Is that the position is that of an agnostic atheist or not?
Click to expand...

That depends on the person in question.

An atheist may lack active belief in a god or possess active belief that no god exists. It has nothing to do with whether they are gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists believe that it can be known whether or not a god exists, but do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no". Agnostic atheists believe that it is impossible to know, but also do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no".
 
Nonpareil said:
Oh, yes, I forgot. I have to defend positions that are not my own. Of course. How silly of me.



That depends on the person in question.

An atheist may lack active belief in a god or possess active belief that no god exists. It has nothing to do with whether they are gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists believe that it can be known whether or not a god exists, but do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no". Agnostic atheists believe that it is impossible to know, but also do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no".
Click to expand...
Can the two “no” answers be made by anyone that isn’t ether an atheist or a subset of an atheist?
 
Nonpareil said:
Oh, yes, I forgot. I have to defend positions that are not my own. Of course. How silly of me.



That depends on the person in question.

An atheist may lack active belief in a god or possess active belief that no god exists. It has nothing to do with whether they are gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists believe that it can be known whether or not a god exists, but do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no". Agnostic atheists believe that it is impossible to know, but also do not necessarily possess active belief that the answer is "no".
Click to expand...

*Chuckles*

It is about beliefs really.

Atheists might not believe that god or gods exist, (in which case they lack belief in that department) but the subgroups of what is understood to be atheism can still be sorted through beliefs.

Some type atheists actively believe god or gods do not exist.
Some don't know.

Those (like myself) don;t know and thus lack belief - but are not actively believing that god or gods do not exist.

The position of 'I don't know' automatically means that there are no beliefs attached either way.

This position can be used also for questions such as 'does individual consciousness survive the death of the body?'

I am an "I don't knowist" in relation to such questions. This helps keep me from having to believe, because I see what belief does to individuals, regardless of what the beliefs are (for or against).
 
ynot said:
Can the two “no” answers be made by anyone that isn’t ether an atheist or a subset of an atheist?
Click to expand...

Not under the current formal definition of atheism, no.

Which, again, is the point. The distinction is useful, and lumping those who answer "no" to both questions together with those who only answer "no" to the first leads to unnecessary confusion.

No one disputes what the formal definition says. What is being questioned is the usefulness of that definition, and how it might be improved.
 
ynot said:
There are no true agnostics.

But it's true that there are agnostic-theists and agnostic-atheists.
Click to expand...
Both of those are "true" agnostics. You can use the two ideas independently of one another.

An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows.
An atheist does not believe. A theist believes.

You can say that you don't know without also having to simultaneously say whether you believe or not.
 
Elagabalus said:
The German major would know that the Wiktionary link was suspect and would click immediately on the Duden online link (from your link) to find the real truth

http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Klammer

scroll down. (There's even a picture)
Click to expand...
If you are talking about swearing (OK, German isn't swearing ;)) then I have had this conversation countless times:

OP: "Do you think X?"
Me: "****** if I know".

If I answered "no" meaning "I haven't thought about it" the OP would inevitably interpret that as meaning that I think not X.
 
Nonpareil said:
Not under the current formal definition of atheism, no.

Which, again, is the point. The distinction is useful, and lumping those who answer "no" to both questions together with those who only answer "no" to the first leads to unnecessary confusion.

No one disputes what the formal definition says. What is being questioned is the usefulness of that definition, and how it might be improved.
Click to expand...
So you admit your “third category" doesn't currently exist because it’s covered by the atheist category with its subsets.

Nonpareil said:
Answer "no" to both, and you are the third category.
Click to expand...
Rather than admit your above statement is wrong, you now want to rewrite dictionaries to invent a new category so you can claim you were right.

Earlier in this thread you (and others) claimed “I don’t know” was a third category. The sole purpose of this thread is to debate the claim that “I don’t know” isn't a third category. Please stop derailing this thread and address this argument directly.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Both of those are "true" agnostics. You can use the two ideas independently of one another.

An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows.
An atheist does not believe. A theist believes.

You can say that you don't know without also having to simultaneously say whether you believe or not.
Click to expand...
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”.
 
Last edited:
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...

And yet a brief google search will find you several Christian Agnostic blogs, books, and groups.

By itself agnostic tells you nothing about belief.

By itself agnostic tells you nothing about atheism or theism.
 
ACT ONE: THE OPENING VOLLEY

RickM said:
Ok, let’s see…..On one side, we have arguably the greatest mind of the 20th century eloquently explaining (above) why there is a distinction between the two terms….and on the other side, we have Moe, Larry, and Curley from the Skeptics Forum explaining why there isn‘t...
Click to expand...



ACT TWO: THE RECOVERY

Nonpareil said:
.... There needs to be a distinction between those who actively believe there are no gods and those who simply don't have an opinion.

And that's why the central idea of this thread is largely pointless. Yes, according to the formal definition of atheism, those without an opinion one way or the other are atheists. But this definition is quickly becoming archaic. There needs to be a third category, but people who try to place themselves in the third category are being told "there's already a category for you", and that's not helping anyone. It just wastes everyone's time. It's technically correct, but it's not useful.

I dislike using "agnostic" as the label for this third category, as agnostic atheism and theism still exist even when this third category is allowed, and that just muddies the issue....
Click to expand...



ACT THREE: RELIEVED OF DUTY

ynot said:
I’m beginning to feel like an uninvited guest in my own thread.

That third category would be agnostic-atheist. A subset of atheist. Already catered for

I thought you and some others were arguing for a category for "I don't know". What happened to that one?

Now I can't even see any goal posts.
Click to expand...



ACT FOUR: THE FINALE (Moe, Larry, & Curley = MLC)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: So, you're saying that Agnosticism = Atheism?

MLC: Yes, that's exactly what we're saying....technically speaking, of course.

Me: Oh, of course.....So, technically speaking, wouldn't that make Agnostic-Atheism redundant?

MLC: ....... (crickets cherping) ....... Gee, we didn't think of that...dahhhh, but in our defense, we plan to come up with a new word for the 3rd category to replace Agnostic.

Me: Have you checked with Webster yet on that?

MLC: Well, technically no.

Me: Would you like me to call 'em on your behalf when you're ready?

MLC: Well, swell, yea ....that's really nice of you.

Me: No problem....anytime.

Einstein: (peeing himself, somewhere in the cosmos) :)
 
ynot said:
So you admit your “third category" doesn't currently exist because it’s covered by the atheist category with its subsets.


Rather than admit your above statement is wrong, you now want to rewrite dictionaries to invent a new category so you can claim you were right.

Earlier in this thread you (and others) claimed “I don’t know” was a third category. The sole purpose of this thread is to debate the claim that “I don’t know” isn't a third category. Please stop derailing this thread and address this argument directly.
Click to expand...

Let's see. You create a thread (and category) that's entirely subjective and defined by you and you alone and then you get pissed when no one wants to be shoehorned into your little box. You win the internet!!
 
Dinwar said:
Context is necessary to comprehend English. If YOU answer "no", it could be honest.
Click to expand...

Dinwar, if I don't know anything about an issue, I can't possibly hold a belief about it, can I ? So if you ask me "do you believe X about this issue", the only answer I can give is "I don't know anything about this issue, so no."

That's an honest answer for everybody, not just me. This "I don't know, so I don't hold a belief but I also don't hold a disbelief" is just PC nonsense.
 
psionl0 said:
Well, no.

Had the maths major answered "no" then the German major could have pointed to Wiktionary which says,

Noun [edit]

Wäscheklammer f (genitive Wäscheklammer, plural Wäscheklammern)
  1. peg
and say that the Maths major was wrong not to believe that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.

Clearly, the Maths major had no intention of denying the belief that a Wäscheklammer is a peg.
Click to expand...

But that's not what lack of belief means. It means you don't hold a positive belief about this statement.
 
ynot said:
So you admit your “third category" doesn't currently exist because it’s covered by the atheist category with its subsets.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's been my point since the beginning.

It's covered by that category. It would be more useful and cause less confusion if there were a separate category, so that such a broad set of people was not being labeled using a term which carries a lot of connotations that don't necessarily apply to everyone in it.

ynot said:
Rather than admit your above statement is wrong
Click to expand...

It's not. You just aren't understanding what is being said to you.

ynot said:
Earlier in this thread you (and others) claimed “I don’t know” was a third category.
Click to expand...

No, we said that it should be a third category.

ynot said:
The sole purpose of this thread is to debate the claim that “I don’t know” isn't a third category. Please stop derailing this thread and address this argument directly.
Click to expand...

You have a real problem with attempting to control "your own thread".

That said, it's been admitted that it isn't, according to the formal definitions of theism and atheism. The issue is that it would be helpful if it was.

Again, if all you want to do is point at a dictionary, then this entire thread is pointless, because you could just link to the definition and have done.
 
Belz... said:
If you don't know, then you don't hold a belief about it.
Click to expand...
No matter how much you would like to redefine atheism to mean "completely neutral" that is not how other people see it. If you say that you are not for something then you will be seen as against it.

That is why many people prefer to refer to themselves as "agnostic" even though that term is about knowledge rather than belief.
 
psionl0 said:
No matter how much you would like to redefine atheism to mean "completely neutral" that is not how other people see it.
Click to expand...

Where the hell have I done this ? The word specifically refers to the absence of belief. Absence of knowledge on a topic results in an abense of belief.

If you say that you are not for something then you will be seen as against it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem of the people who see it that way.

That is why many people prefer to refer to themselves as "agnostic" even though that term is about knowledge rather than belief.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's not what the word means, and it's not my problem if people don't understand language.
 
Belz... said:
That's the problem of the people who see it that way.
Click to expand...

So how do you see the meaning of a word?

Well, you don't see the meaning of a word. You understand the meaning. So there are people who understand the meaning of know and believe differently that you. So now I would like evidence that it is the problem of the people who understand it that way.

Come, Belz... You can do it. You know objectively and all that.
Explain how there is a difference between yes, no and no opinion to the question of "Do you believe in God?"? And how the answer - no opinion - is the problem of the people who understand it that way?

Remember - no feelings, emotions, subjectivity and all that. Reason, logic, evidence and so and no personal opinion. ;) :)
 
psionl0 said:
No matter how much you would like to redefine atheism to mean "completely neutral" that is not how other people see it. If you say that you are not for something then you will be seen as against it.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the point.

No one disagrees that those who call themselves agnostics fall under the formal definition of atheism, or that, assuming everyone is always perfectly rational about it, that said definition functions.

The problem is that people are rarely rational, and there is a difference between "atheist because of lack of belief" and "atheist who actively disbelieves" that is not conveyed via simply using the word "atheist". Adding qualifiers can help, but that's getting more confusing for people who aren't aware of the various distinctions.

People are idiots. Using an idiot-friendly system makes things easier all around.
 
This was the OP:

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...

It is obviously a statement and isn't really controversial or particularly helpful. If anything it appears to want to classify people into two opposing groups and leave it at that.

this was the second post of the thread:

Nay_Sayer said:
As far as I'm concerned there are two answers to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" If the answer is anything but yes than you're an atheist.

I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes. "How people choose to label themselves"

"If the answer is anything but yes...then you're an atheist."
'Maybe' doesn't qualify one as an atheist, and 'I don't know' isn't an answer to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" unless the subject of god(s) is unknown to the one being questioned.

Belz... said:
Dinwar, if I don't know anything about an issue, I can't possibly hold a belief about it, can I ? So if you ask me "do you believe X about this issue", the only answer I can give is "I don't know anything about this issue, so no."

That's an honest answer for everybody, not just me. This "I don't know, so I don't hold a belief but I also don't hold a disbelief" is just PC nonsense.
Click to expand...

Until something is known about the subject of the question (in this case god(s) and their existence, one is ignorant. If the argument then is 'the answer has to be "no I don't" then the person is considered by others to be an atheist by ignorance - and thus the one answering can be seen to be an atheist by those observing.
That isn't very logical though . To have to answer "No I don't believe (am therefor an atheist) in that which I know nothing about." because others insist that one is an atheist if one is ignorant of the subject of the question.
"I don't know anything about the subject and until I do, I cannot give an answer so shouldn't need to identify or be identified as anything until such time as I look into the matter and make a decision." (now **** off and stop trying to label me.)

That one - upon finding out about the subject god(s) may decide one way or the other, or decide that he/she cannot categorically say 'yes' or 'no' and thus answers 'I don't know'.

That is not PC nonsense. That is taking the responsibility for understanding your self in relation to the question and finding an answer which best reflects that self, without bowing to outside pressure from those who think otherwise or believe they have a right to label you as they see fit.
It is the honest answer to any such question.



Belz... said:
Where the hell have I done this ? The word specifically refers to the absence of belief. Absence of knowledge on a topic results in an abense of belief.

That's the problem of the people who see it that way.

Yes but that's not what the word means, and it's not my problem if people don't understand language.
Click to expand...

Understanding language isn't so much the problem. understanding the way language is used in a manner which can and often does cause confusion and silly argument is more the problem.
'Rewriting the dictionary' is one such silly argument. The dictionary is always adding new definitions as people work with language.
There really should be a category separate from the sub categories of atheism for those who see the logical sense in answering 'I don't know' to certain questions which require such an answer. It would help lessen the confusion.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So how do you see the meaning of a word?
Click to expand...

What ?

So there are people who understand the meaning of know and believe differently that you.
Click to expand...

Yes and that's a problem, because the use of language is when we use the same sounds to mean the same things.

Explain how there is a difference between yes, no and no opinion to the question of "Do you believe in God?"? And how the answer - no opinion - is the problem of the people who understand it that way?
Click to expand...

That's a terribly constructed question. If you don't have an opinion on a matter, then you don't hold a particular opinion on the matter. In the case of belief in gods, if you don't have an opinion, then you don't believe in gods, making you an atheist.

Remember - no feelings, emotions, subjectivity and all that. Reason, logic, evidence and so and no personal opinion. ;) :)
Click to expand...

Now you're just being incoherent. No one ever said that personal opinions were forbidden. It's just you being unable to understand language again.
 
Navigator said:
Until something is known about the subject of the question (in this case god(s) and their existence, one is ignorant. If the argument then is 'the answer has to be "no I don't" then the person is considered by others to be an atheist by ignorance - and thus the one answering can be seen to be an atheist by those observing.
That isn't very logical though . To have to answer "No I don't believe in that which I know nothing about." because others insist that.
"I don't know anything about the subject and until I do, I cannot give an answer so shouldn't need to identify or be identified as an atheist until such time as i look into the matter and make a decision." (now **** off and stop trying to label me.)
Click to expand...

That's a lot of words that lead nowhere.

- Given that "Atheist" means "one who does not believe in gods"
- Given that you would answer "do you believe in gods" with "I don't know"
- It stands to reason that you actually don't, making you an atheist.

"Agnostic" isn't some magical middle ground. It's a completely different scale.
 
Belz... said:
That's a lot of words that lead nowhere.
Click to expand...

That's an irrelevant opinion. (not argument)

That "I don't know" might qualify me as being an agnostic atheist is here nor there.

The focus is on the confusion people have with the defined labels, specifically labels which others can define others with, rather than self defining labels.

"I don't know if god(s) exist or not" Is the most honest answer to the question "Do you believe god(s) exist." because it keeps me free from belief and having to believe one way or the other. the question is a loaded one.

And for me, honesty is the best way to approach anything, and I don;t want to be confused with dishonest people wearing a similar label.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
...
Yes and that's a problem, because the use of language is when we use the same sounds to mean the same things.
...
Click to expand...

No, you are gay, right?

Now can you get into your head the fact of in practice cognitive relativism? That people for some cases can think and feel different? How is that a problem, if it is a fact that people for some cases think and feel differently?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, you are gay, right?
Click to expand...

Joyous, yes.

Fluidity of language is both a good and a bad thing. It allows language to adapt to changing circumstances, but it introduces a major element of confusion that I would rather do without.

That said, atheism has the same definition it had when the thread started.
 
Just to demonstrate how confusing it can get, someone could, in response to the question "Do you believe in God?", reply with "I don't know what you mean by God", and then when told "By God, I mean a Creator of the Universe who can intervene with it", reply "No. Such "No" could mean "That's imposible. That could never, under any circumstance be true". Or such "No" could mean "I don't believe in that type of God, for I have yet not seen any evidence for him". .... and yet, if given a different response (such as "By God, I mean the Cosmos and its laws") reply "Yes".

But getting all wrapped up in these things is irrelevant, because any good skeptic knows that it isn't about what we believe. It's about what we can prove. So what does it matter how were gonna label it? At the end of the day, you can spend your whole lifetime worshipping a God that doesn't exist. Then you die and nothing happens. Did it really matter what you believed? Let alone, how to properly give his belief a definition?
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
That's an irrelevant opinion. (not argument)
Click to expand...

What about the rest of my post you snipped, mister honesty ?

That "I don't know" might qualify me as being an agnostic atheist is here nor there.
Click to expand...

Actually it's the entirety of the OP's point. Saying "I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic" is simply a misunderstanding of the terms used, because you can be both, neither or a combination of them.

"I don't know if god(s) exist or not" Is the most honest answer to the question "Do you believe god(s) exist."
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't answer the question at all, which either means the person didn't understand the query or is dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
That's an irrelevant opinion. (not argument)

That "I don't know" might qualify me as being an agnostic atheist is here nor there.

The focus is on the confusion people have with the defined labels, specifically labels which others can define others with, rather than self defining labels.

"I don't know if god(s) exist or not" Is the most honest answer to the question "Do you believe god(s) exist." because it keeps me free from belief and having to believe one way or the other. the question is a loaded one.

And for me, honesty is the best way to approach anything, and I don;t want to be confused with dishonest people wearing a similar label.
Click to expand...
Not only is it not an honest answer, it’s not even an answer to the question at all. The question is -“Do you BELIEVE?” The question is NOT - “Do you KNOW?”

“I don’t know if I believe” isn’t a credible answer either. If you actively and consciously hold a belief then you absolutely know you do. Even if you couldn’t decide if you actively and consciously hold a belief, then during that process you can't claim you do hold a belief. Unless you do you don’t. There’s no “half-pregnant” belief.

It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to deny that they don’t have a belief in a god or gods. The label “atheist” is treated like some nasty disease that’s to be avoided at all costs. What’s so scary and unpalatable in accepting a label that admits and declares that you don’t have a belief in a magical, invisible sky-daddy?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That said, atheism has the same definition it had when the thread started.
Click to expand...
Not so. Even Ynot has shifted the goal post several times on that one.

The meaning of "atheist" depends on which dictionary you use and which option from the dictionary that you pick.

You can choose a less than common definition definition if you wish. However, if in doing so you know that you will be misunderstood then it is not the other person who is at fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom