The United States Is the Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

reply to post by BenReclused


"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." ~Huxley

Huxley is saying beliefs should have good reason behind them. Huxley would understand and support the 'agnostic atheist' who chooses not to believe the proposition is true because it wholly lacks evidence. He wouldn't support them if they 'concluded with certainty' because he would call that intellectual dishonesty. And plenty of atheists are not claiming that certainty. Such as myself and plenty of other atheists on ATS. Only those that are claiming that certainty, claiming that knowledge, are the ones making an 'unintelligible proposition'. Whereas, Huxley is clearly saying a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence is the intelligent position.

Notice he said it's not a creed but a method.

So what I am saying is the '"creed" is atheism, the method is agnosticism. Used together we have a position that says I don't believe in god because there is a lack of evidence [reasons] however I am not claiming to know god doesn't exist because I don't have enough knowledge to be certain. That's an atheist. That's compatible with agnosticism. That's an intelligent position.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I find a flaw in your understanding of it, yes. Here let me repost it.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Notice two separate definitions. Why would they be separate? Could it be that what you grabbed supports what I have been saying over and over. That atheists can a) have a lack of belief in the existence of god or b) assert they know there exists no deity. Your definition separates these positions because it understands both positions exist.

No, you didn't. I've never disputed any of those points, with you. Furthermore, I'm glad to see that you approve of the DEFINITION THAT I PROVIDED. Would you, also, agree that it's better than the one you offered?

I have explained agnosticism and explained how atheism and agnosticism are compatible. Ad nasuem. Other members even gave you definitions of atheism and agnosticism working in unison.

That is, INDEED, true! The problem IS:
Many atheists don't want to discuss, listen to, or even think about, why they ARE NOT compatible. It's like, you guys feel guilty, or something...

You don't understand this because you are essentially saying someone cannot lack a belief in something being true and at the same time believe in its possibility.

I'm not saying that, at all. What I have been trying to tell you, all along, is that the people that you just described, CAN ONLY BE AGNOSTICS. AND, because they "believe in its possibility", they CAN NOT BE ATHEISTS. Look at these snippets from the your comment, above:
"something being true"

"its possibility"

Those beliefs (as nouns) would be one, and the same. Explain how one can lack one, without lacking the other. Anyway, atheism, agnosticism, and theism aren't about a belief in a possibility, they are, only, about belief in the reality of deities.

Why would god belief be different in nature than other beliefs.

I never said that it would be! If you had spent as much time reading my text, as you did "between the lines", you would know that.

You are completely ignoring the point.

There wasn't one...

You seem to think what we are saying is a legitimate position is impossible.

Great! You ALMOST got "one" right...

Those thought experiments should have demonstrated your thinking was off mark.

Uh, huh... We'll see...

You don't want to put forth the effort.

I don't need to "put forth the effort". I, already, understand those "thought experiments", much better than you do.

Someone that lacks the belief in god shouldn't criticize religion?? lol. You'll have to elaborate on that.

Better yet, tell me why you chose to use the word "criticize", instead of the word that was originally used: "RIDICULE" LOL

Disbelief does NOT mean one has to believe its existence is impossible. Disbelief does NOT automatically mean that person is claiming knowledge.

I never said, otherwise.

This is what you're not understanding.

Someone can lack the belief something exists due to a lack of evidence but hold the position it's a possibility since they understand they don't posses enough knowledge to know with certainty.

^aka agnostic atheist. also known as weak atheist and soft atheist.

I understand that, perfectly, and I've never disputed it. My concern is what's missing from, the above, the provided definitions of "agnostic atheist", and even your responses:
Atheism, as theism does, requires a "tilt" AWAY FROM AGNOSTICISM.

The only difference between, soft and weak atheists, and the one's waving their hard-ons around, is the angle of their dangle. Why do you, and so many other atheists, choose to ignore, and even deny, that "angle"?

My only clue? I said I didn't believe in god many times. Remember the definition you gave me?? That was in it. Should have been a strong indicator.

So what? Like myself, many agnostics, also, say the same thing. That's in our definition, too. Did you, really, forget that? Or, are you intentionally ignoring it?

I am very much an anti-theist

Yep! I knew that as soon as, I read your first response.

My point was if you lack belief in the existence of gods of other religions then you should, if you're willing to be honest, understand the other points being discussed.

I do understand all of points being discussed. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be capable of discussing the points that I've made, without distorting them first.

While I'm thinking about it, I've got a "thought experiment" for you, too:

May God be with you! After all... ONE NEVER KNOWS...

On a scale of one to ten, how proudly would you display the message above, in your "Signature", below?

Hell, at the moment, I couldn't be more proud... Take a look...

See ya,
Milt

PS:
L O L

reply to post by BenReclused

Would you, also, agree that it's better than the one you offered?

It IS the definitions I have been providing…

Your definition speaks of two distinct positions. As am I. Do you still not understand the implications of each? Tell me then according to the definition(s) you provided what do you think both definitions mean?

Many atheists don't want to discuss, listen to, or even think about, why they ARE NOT compatible. It's like, you guys feel guilty, or something…

I showed how they are compatible. I even quoted the founder of the term and broke down how agnosticism works with atheism.

What I have been trying to tell you, all along, is that the people that you just described, CAN ONLY BE AGNOSTICS. AND, because they "believe in its possibility", they CAN NOT BE ATHEISTS.

Yelling doesn't make the argument stronger.

Even the definition of atheism you provided said otherwise It said one of the definitions was the doctrine there is no god aka stating the possibility doesn't exist. That was separated from the other definition which was a lack of belief in god(s). The implication of the definitions you provided was that the 'lack of belief' was not a doctrine of no god existing. You still don't understand that the lack of belief in the existence doesn't necessarily entail the claim of knowledge it doesn't exist. Per your definition simply the lack of belief makes one an atheist.

People can and do lack the belief in the existence of things and still be open to the possibility of its existence. Per the definition you provided that person would be an atheist.

There wasn't one…

Yes. Yes there was. You said you 'didn't care about the demographic of atheism'. Well when you start to care you will see one of the positions of atheism is not the claim of knowledge there exists no god.

Uh, huh... We'll see…

Actually we won't see because you apparently are not bothering with them. Maybe if you do we will see.

I don't need to "put forth the effort". I, already, understand those "thought experiments", much better than you do.

lol

Atheism, as theism does, requires a "tilt" AWAY FROM AGNOSTICISM.

Agnosticism is not a position on belief towards god. It's a methodology. It says people should have good reasoning behind their belief. If evidence is lacking for a god then it is very in line with agnosticism to lack belief [atheist]. On that same token it would be unfounded for that atheist to assert god doesn't exist since that atheist isn't privy to enough knowledge to make that claim [agnosticism].

Agnosticism is not a middle ground. You're using the wrong understanding of agnosticism. One of the links I provided that you didn't read explained that. I can link more for you not to read if you desire.

Yep! I knew that as soon as, I read your first response.

It's a dirty word to you but I am more than proud of my anti-theism thank you very much.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to be capable of discussing the points that I've made, without distorting them first.

I have been doing nothing but discussing them. What you view as 'distorting them' is actually just explanations you're not grasping.

reply to post by BenReclused

May God be with you! After all... ONE NEVER KNOWS…

That is my position. Along with many other atheists.

reply to post by BenReclused


Ma'at. A creator god according to ancient Egyptian belief. Do you believe Ma'at exists? Yes or no?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

That is my position. Along with many other atheists.

That's not what the question of my experiment asked:

On a scale of one to ten, how proudly would you display the message above, in your "Signature", below?

Did you have difficulty understanding it?

I'll respond to your other posts later.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by BenReclused

 

Ma'at. A creator god according to ancient Egyptian belief. Do you believe Ma'at exists? Yes or no?

That's cool! I'll play! But you've got to play, too, Just make sure that you include your response to this question, with your next question.

No

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

Okay. Thank you. It's really not a game but a genuine exploration of belief.

Do you claim it's impossible Ma'at exists?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

No

You owe me two answers.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Great.

So your position is that this god doesn't exist and that it's possible this god could.

That is the position of the agnostic atheist. You understand this belief. You have it yourself.

Now per the definition you provided. One of the two definitions was a 'lack of belief in the existence of god'.

Just as you lack the belief in the existence of Ma'at, the atheist lacks the existence of your god. The only difference is the atheist lacks belief in one more than you.

reply to post by BenReclused

You owe me two answers.

I owe you nothing. You never responded to my thought experiments. Why would I now owe you answers? Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

So your position is that this god doesn't exist and that it's possible this god could.

No! That is not my "position". I, only, lack a belief in your deity.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

Ma'at. A creator god according to ancient Egyptian belief. Do you believe Ma'at exists? Yes or no?

your quote:

No.

Do you claim it's impossible Ma'at exists?

Your quote:

no

That is precisely what you said.

Which is exactly what I am saying myself towards god belief. It simply extends to one more.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

That is precisely what you said.

You got my answers right, yet you came to the wrong conclusion regarding my "beliefs". Why do you think that was? I'll bet that you can't answer that, can you?

I know that I can.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


You already demonstrated your belief is my own.

You lost the argument.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I owe you nothing. You never responded to my thought experiments. Why would I now owe you answers? Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

Damned, dude! Take a "chill pill"!

I was only wanting your answers to the questions that you just asked me. I don't need them now, though. I feel that it's safe to assume that they were the same as mine were. I knew that they would be, and that you'd come to the wrong conclusion, regarding my "position".

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


I am completely chill. Answer mine and I'll answer yours. Seems reasonable to me.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

You already demonstrated your belief resembles my own.

I've been saying that all along. I've also been trying to show you why they differ. Unfortunately, and because you haven't "listened", you still don't understand why they, truly do, differ.

You lost the argument.

My goodness! Such delusions of grandeur... I can't say that I'm surprised, though.

Quite honestly, I feel that you have been educated beyond your level of comprehension. That would, indeed, explain your propensity for misconceptions.

First you asked:
Ma'at. A creator god according to ancient Egyptian belief. Do you believe Ma'at exists?
I answered "No". If you had asked about "God" we would have both said "No".

Then you asked:
Do you claim it's impossible Ma'at exists?
I answered "No". If you had asked about "God" we would have, both, said "No".

Because of my answers, you improperly concluded:
So your position is that this god doesn't exist and that it's possible this god could.

My response was:
No! That is not my "position". I, only, lack a belief in your deity.

What you don't understand is:
My "lack of belief in your deity", also included a "lack of belief" in it's nonexistence; I neither believe, nor disbelieve, Ma'at's existence. Nor, did I make any claims regarding the possibility of that existence.

That, my pompous little friend, is the very definition of agnosticism.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

Quite honestly, I feel that you have been educated beyond your level of comprehension.

That, my pompous little friend

It appears so. I have met someone beyond me. I cannot compare. lol..

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

It appears so. I have met someone beyond me. I cannot compare. lol..

So says the "chest thumper", who's only efforts have been deceit, and denial...

See ya,
Milt