Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

reply to post by bsbray11


*Achoo*
Sorry, I get bad allergies around this much straw.

I never said that any similarity automatically means equivalence, I said that when two groups are defined identically they are identical things.

I said that there is overlap. Agnostic doesn't necessarily mean atheist, atheist doesn't necessarily mean agnostic. Agnostics can be theistic or atheistic. Gnostics can be atheistic or theistic.

You continue to argue that atheist merely means "gnostic theist", yet you provided a dictionary definition that highlights that there is a distinction between two separate groups of atheism: the group that rejects positive god claims and the group that asserts its own positive claims of no gods.

That distinction alone should show you that the ideas that are found throughout this thread that I've repeated yet again above and were repeated by several others at the very least have some merit.

The reason I have a problem bringing in common use dictionaries is that, especially on these sorts of terms, they can be contradictory.

reply to post by bsbray11

I know you don't like dictionary definitions, but only because you're living in a parallel universe where all of your words mean very different things than what they mean to everyone else. You're like a one-man propaganda department, for yourself.

AMEN

I could never have said that, but it is something that needed to be stated.
The non-acceptance of these words is like a dog chasing his tail.
Carry on

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
*Achoo*
Sorry, I get bad allergies around this much straw.

Ah, so you can be cute. What other gimmicks have you got going on?

I never said that any similarity automatically means equivalence, I said that when two groups are defined identically they are identical things.

The only one defining them identically, is you.

The dictionary, does not define "atheist" and "agnostic" identically.

Again, you reject the dictionary definitions to invent your own, and even admit that you reject the dictionary's own definitions.

I said that there is overlap. Agnostic doesn't necessarily mean atheist, atheist doesn't necessarily mean agnostic. Agnostics can be theistic or atheistic. Gnostics can be atheistic or theistic.

Ahh, now comes the back-peddling. Agnostics and atheists aren't necessarily the same now, huh? Sorry dude, it's a little too late when "Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it." is plastered at the top of every thread page.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
You failed to notice that it provides two different definitions, and two slight variations of the second definition. If you want to play the dictionary game, then by the first definition, you're asserting that atheists are all evil or bad. That's not very nice or even factually accurate.

I'm paying more attention than you are. The first definition was clearly labeled "archaic." Unless you are still living in the past.... and besides, I didn't say that was my definition. It's the dictionary's. Maybe we should go over the purpose of the dictionary in society. It's for establishing common ground, a standard for what words mean so everyone can use and understand them. Again, it isn't a book for expressing my sentiments.

Let's look at the second definition though. There are two parts. "a' and "b."

a. : a disbelief in the existence of a deity - This is what we would refer to as "weak" atheism, or agnostic atheism.

Who is "we" and what is your source for this?

Some atheists do positively claim that there is no god, but most don't, especially here on ATS.

I posted the definition of "agnostic" earlier in the thread. You can look up various definitions yourself. Compare and contrast with the definitions given for "atheist." In the dictionary, you will see the common understanding of most people. Again, this is what dictionaries are for in the first place.

reply to post by bsbray11

I know you don't like dictionary definitions, but only because you're living in a parallel universe where all of your words mean very different things than what they mean to everyone else.

No, Atheists over the past several years have re-defined their position to purposely word it not to be a positive deceleration. The Theist's argument that a positive position on God's existence is impossible without the attributes of God Himself.

Webster's definition is what Atheism was more than a decade ago. The definition now, is just slightly different. We can do the same semantic sleight of hand by refusing to affirm a positive stance.

"I lack a belief that God doesn't exist."

You're like a one-man propaganda department, for yourself.

I think Madness should get ATS's "Proselytizer Of The Year" award. He has 3 times as many threads proselytizing for atheism and Humanism that any Theist on these boards.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Webster's definition is what Atheism was more than a decade ago. The definition now, is just slightly different. We can do the same semantic sleight of hand by refusing to affirm a positive stance.

"I lack a belief that God doesn't exist."

I'm not a Christian myself but I have to absolutely agree with what you say here. That's a very clever way to dodge a burden of proof, isn't it?

We don't have to have proof for all of the things we believe, but at least we can realize as much honestly.

reply to post by bsbray11

That's a very clever way to dodge a burden of proof, isn't it?

That's precisely why it's done. To reconcile an impossible position.

No, it's certainly not "clever", it's childish.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ugh, not this idiocy again. You're simply demonstrating either ignorance of basic English or you're being intentionally deceitful.

lack + not
Two negatives.
Double negative.

You should know enough English to know that a double negative is a positive.

You cannot make your position out to be a negative position because it is a position that asserts that a deity exists. Christianity has further claims beyond that still, regarding the nature of that deity, its commands, and its interaction with humanity and the universe. On top of that, you assert the gnostic atheistic position in regards to every other deity that exists, asserting that all other deities do not existing.

I simply refuse to accept this childish attempt to remove the burden of proof from a claimant. I do not believe in any deity, but I can not (and do not) claim that no deity exists because there is the option that there is an omnipotent, omniscient being that is trying to hide from me. Just that one example alone is enough for me to not assert the non-existence of deities. Your deity is equally nebulous, as it would be easy to prove the existence of yet nearly impossible to disprove because of how far back the goal posts get pushed with every attempt.

reply to post by bsbray11


I was actually corrected not long after the thread started due to a post OutKast Searcher made on the first page. In this post, which is on the second page, I admitted that agnostic theists do exist.

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Theist

It's not a three way split, it's a four(ish) way split...I'm not really sure where you would place deists and pan-theists.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Whatever you wanna believe man.

It's just a semantic sleight of hand.

The Agnostic position is at least intellectually honest.

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm sorry, but clearly you haven't been bothering to click on the links provided in this article. The distinctions Pie brings up can be found even on Wikipedia, with twenty citations.

I've already provided this link in response to the assertion from Shamatt that I was making this stuff all up and living in my own special little world.

Hell, I'm surprised you didn't bother to wiki it yourself.

I'm sorry, but clearly you haven't been bothering to click on the links provided in this article.

YES! I've finally discovered the epitome of "Irony"!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Whatever you wanna believe man.

Well, I prefer to believe evidence based statements, like "The world is an oblate spheroid"
So I choose not to believe in deities

It's just a semantic sleight of hand.

You can claim that all you want, but you're not able to actually provide any proof for it (much like any of your other statements on religious matters).

The Agnostic position is at least intellectually honest.

Agnosticism, as you're describing it, is agnostic atheism. It's the same damn thing that I follow. I do not believe in any deities, but there is the chance that a deity exists. Why do you think I keep asking you for proof? Is it because I'm playing rhetoric games or is it because I'm being honest and want to see justification for your beliefs? I do the same with any believer. "What do you believe and why?" if the "Why" part of the statement doesn't meet the burden of proof for this sort of claim then it I reject the individuals religious assertions.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Why do you think I keep asking you for proof?

You certainly are not on a quest for "proof", you're proselytizing Atheism/Humanism/Evolution in every thread you create. Now you're blatantly being dishonest. No one who has been a member here for more than 3 months would think you're genuinely on a mission from God (pun intended) for "proof".

Thanks for the literal "LOL" and good luck with your thread. Even the Agnostics are telling you you're living in Fantasy Land.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I was actually corrected not long after the thread started due to a post OutKast Searcher made on the first page. In this post, which is on the second page, I admitted that agnostic theists do exist.

It seems the only thing you do not accept here are the common dictionary definitions of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" by themselves.

You can make the argument that dictionary definitions are arbitrary, and this would be true. However it would not make your own assertions of different definitions any less arbitrary, and definitions of words are not "proven" by science or logic because words merely represent concepts that may or may not have anything to do with reality in the first place, and may even be mutually exclusive with each other.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by OverMan

 

There is no grey choice here. I'm not creating a false dilemma, which is what you're trying to imply. Unless you can show me that there is a third option in the question: "Do you believe in a deity?" other than "yes" or "no"

.

"I am not sure if I believe or not." Is quite valid. "I haven't made up my mind yet." If you think only with your brain and form questions like the prosecution in a murder trial, sure, I can see how you can think only two options exist. One may experience "God" on an emotional level, at odds with his "reason". Yet, he will still know what he "saw" despite the lack of scientific explanation. All knowledge is based on trust. Some trust others; others trust themselves. Atheists love to talk about facts. Where do facts come from? Many of these facts are merely probability based assumptions.