(December 3, 2013 at 12:46 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Your quote said nothing about "gnosticism." In fact if you look at the origin of the word agnosticism, you'll see it has nothing to do with gnosticism. The current use of the word too, has nothing to do with gnosticism.

It seems you are correct. I guess that's why it isn't a-gnosticism.

(December 3, 2013 at 12:46 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: On positive and negative atheism, I'm a bit more accepting, since some significant minds, like Anthony Flew and Michael Martin are on board with it. But like the OP shows, Flew's claims were part of a strategic argument (he was trying to argue that atheism was the default position) which was ultimately rejected, and afaik his work needs significant massaging to make it say positive and negative atheism.

Michael Martin's work supports it more clearly, but these two are a clear minority, and I'm very tentative to accept it.

I think that simply taking the suffix a- (without) and applying it to theism would result in a-theism (without theism), which would not necessarily imply direct belief that god does not exist.

(December 3, 2013 at 12:46 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: What is my conclusion at the end of this? I think at minimum, you need to accept that the alternative definition is a valid alternative, even if it is not the one you prefer.

I am not completely certain what you mean by this. I have never suggested that those who actively believe god does not exist aren't atheists. It would be so easy if agnostic atheists could be people who simply don't believe whereas normal atheists could believe the opposite, but that excludes the possibility of belief without claiming knowledge. Those who actively believe against are generally now called 'hard' or 'strong' atheists.

In short, both those who simply don't believe and those who believe the opposite are both considered atheists. If by accepting the alternative definition, you mean something akin to the Merriam Webster definition:

Merriam Webster.com Wrote:Definition of ATHEISM

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Where

Merriam Webster.com Wrote:dis·be·lief noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

(2a representing negative athesim, and 2b representing positive), then sure, I can.

Lastly, just as many agnostic atheists simply go by 'atheist', an agnostic who is only atheist on account of not being theist (but really has no clue one way or the other) can simply go by 'agnostic' without making any misleading suggestions about their beliefs or lack thereof (heck, even someone who is pretty sure there isn't a god could technically still go by only 'agnostic' if they wanted too).

(December 3, 2013 at 11:43 pm)WashedinChristblood Wrote: I will pray for you unworthy sinners.

Please do. The more time you spend talking to yourself about us, the less time you have to post on the forums.

(December 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 3, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 2) There is a difference between
(a) believing God does not exist, and
(b) not believing that God exists.

Exactly.

The first statement has the negation on 'exists', the second has the negation on 'belief'.

They both describe atheism.

Quote:3) What you're describing, both
(a) One can be uncertain as to the existence and/or nonexistence of a god or gods, and
(b) still disbelieve they exist.

are true of the proper definition of agnosticism but (a) is false on the proper definition of atheism.

Statement (a) is the true and proper definition of agnosticism.

Statement (b) describes atheism.

Why do you capitalize 'God'? Are you referring to a particular god?

(2b) serves as necessary conditions for atheism, but not sufficient conditions for atheism. Only (2a) is both sufficient and necessary.

What this means is that all atheists meet (2a) and (2b), but not all who meet (2b) are atheists.

So strictly, (2b) does not refer to atheists.

I capitalize 'God' because when I refer to God, it's typically the concept of a maximally great being as opposed to any particular religious conception.

(December 4, 2013 at 12:08 am)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 3, 2013 at 12:46 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Your quote said nothing about "gnosticism." In fact if you look at the origin of the word agnosticism, you'll see it has nothing to do with gnosticism. The current use of the word too, has nothing to do with gnosticism.

It seems you are correct. I guess that's why it isn't a-gnosticism.

(December 3, 2013 at 12:46 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: On positive and negative atheism, I'm a bit more accepting, since some significant minds, like Anthony Flew and Michael Martin are on board with it. But like the OP shows, Flew's claims were part of a strategic argument (he was trying to argue that atheism was the default position) which was ultimately rejected, and afaik his work needs significant massaging to make it say positive and negative atheism.

Michael Martin's work supports it more clearly, but these two are a clear minority, and I'm very tentative to accept it.

I think that simply taking the suffix a- (without) and applying it to theism would result in a-theism (without theism), which would not necessarily imply direct belief that god does not exist.

(December 3, 2013 at 12:46 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: What is my conclusion at the end of this? I think at minimum, you need to accept that the alternative definition is a valid alternative, even if it is not the one you prefer.

I am not completely certain what you mean by this. I have never suggested that those who actively believe god does not exist aren't atheists. It would be so easy if agnostic atheists could be people who simply don't believe whereas normal atheists could believe the opposite, but that excludes the possibility of belief without claiming knowledge. Those who actively believe against are generally now called 'hard' or 'strong' atheists.

In short, both those who simply don't believe and those who believe the opposite are both considered atheists. If by accepting the alternative definition, you mean something akin to the Merriam Webster definition:

Merriam Webster.com Wrote:Definition of ATHEISM

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Where

Merriam Webster.com Wrote:dis·be·lief noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

(2a representing negative athesim, and 2b representing positive), then sure, I can.

Lastly, just as many agnostic atheists simply go by 'atheist', an agnostic who is only atheist on account of not being theist (but really has no clue one way or the other) can simply go by 'agnostic' without making any misleading suggestions about their beliefs or lack thereof (heck, even someone who is pretty sure there isn't a god could technically still go by only 'agnostic' if they wanted too).

Too much creative work going on here. Instead of doing your own work, why not look at the work that has already been done? You might come to the same conclusion as me, which makes you unpopular on the forum.

But at least you know that there are serious minds who prefer this definition.

Today there are agnostic atheists. Tomorrow there might be Hindu atheists or even Christian atheists if this level of creativity is any indication.

(December 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Today there are agnostic atheists. Tomorrow there might be Hindu atheists or even Christian atheists if this level of creativity is any indication.

I believe you'll find there already are Christian atheists. Plenty of people stick around hoping to rekindle faith in ideas that have lost all plausibility. Some probably stick around for the chicken dinner after services. Some out of loyalty to the faith of their fathers.

People, their minds and the world are all complex. None of them obey language. Language is at best a vague approximation of how things actually stand. You shouldn't obsess so much about the language.

Certainly there are agnostic Christians too, these are the best ones. What kind are you Vinny? Literalist fundamentalist? Is your faith solid and true, or do you have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge doubts.



Edited to let you know I've taken you off ignore in case you squeak while I chew on you.

(December 4, 2013 at 10:44 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Today there are agnostic atheists. Tomorrow there might be Hindu atheists or even Christian atheists if this level of creativity is any indication.

I believe you'll find there already are Christian atheists. Plenty of people stick around hoping to rekindle faith in ideas that have lost all plausibility. Some probably stick around for the chicken dinner after services. Some out of loyalty to the faith of their fathers.

People, their minds and the world are all complex. None of them obey language. Language is at best a vague approximation of how things actually stand. You shouldn't obsess so much about the language.

Certainly there are agnostic Christians too, these are the best ones. What kind are you Vinny? Literalist fundamentalist? Is your faith solid and true, or do you have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge doubts.

Edited to let you know I've taken you off ignore in case you squeak while I chew on you.

Which is why you believe square circles exist, amirite?

(December 5, 2013 at 2:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Which is why you believe square circles exist, amirite?

Why is us calling ourselves agnostics rather than atheists more important to you than the positions we actually hold?

(December 5, 2013 at 2:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Which is why you believe square circles exist, amirite?

Yeah, they're called cylinders.

(December 5, 2013 at 2:24 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 2:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Which is why you believe square circles exist, amirite?

Why is us calling ourselves agnostics rather than atheists more important to you than the positions we actually hold?

That question doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't the position you actually hold in line with agnosticism rather than atheism?

(December 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 2:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why is us calling ourselves agnostics rather than atheists more important to you than the positions we actually hold?

That question doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't the position you actually hold in line with agnosticism rather than atheism?

"Do you believe in God?"

I don't know - Agnostic

No - Atheist

I believe he doesn't exist - 'hard' atheist

I'm just throwing this out there, not necessarily saying whether it's accurate or not. Also should note that even a 'hard' atheist can be agnostic about it. Maybe negative atheism is for those who are roughly between 5.5 and 6.5 on the Dawkin's scale. Again, just speculation here.

(December 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 2:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why is us calling ourselves agnostics rather than atheists more important to you than the positions we actually hold?

That question doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't the position you actually hold in line with agnosticism rather than atheism?

What he is asking is why are you so hung on the label, instead of addressing the actual position.