(February 12, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Rob, in that case, I would be completely divided, so I guess that's pure agnosticism. I wouldn't know if it's head or tail

No, that would still be atheism. If you don't accept the claim 'God exists', you're an atheist. That claim has nothing to do with the inverse claim that 'God doesn't exist'.

Nah, I think there's a misunderstanding. You either accept that there is good enough evidence that my claim is true, that I actually know it will come up heads, or you say there isn't enough evidence to deduce that. So you reject the claim. That doesn't mean you are saying the claim is wrong, just that you don't have the evidence to deduce it is right. That's generally how claims work.

(February 12, 2015 at 2:53 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Rob, in that case, I would be completely divided, so I guess that's pure agnosticism. I wouldn't know if it's head or tail

No, that would still be atheism. If you don't accept the claim 'God exists', you're an atheist. That claim has nothing to do with the inverse claim that 'God doesn't exist'.

Yeah I guess you're right. Go tell that to some people.

Oh trust me, I try. 'Atheist' is still just a dirty word to some folks.

Atheist means you suck the Devils balls and stick screwdrivers in children's knees. And you think the universe suddenly came out of nothing and you have faith that you know that there's no God and you probably smell.

---

(February 12, 2015 at 2:54 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 2:53 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No, that would still be atheism. If you don't accept the claim 'God exists', you're an atheist. That claim has nothing to do with the inverse claim that 'God doesn't exist'.

Yeah I guess you're right. Go tell that to some people.

That's where the term agnostic has caused a lot of confusion. Many people, including this guy clearly, see it as a middle ground. And it's not, there is no middle ground. If you don't accept the claim, you reject the claim. He is an agnostic atheist, but he doesn't know it. As well as a pompous nob. I read a quote from David Mitchell saying pretty much the same thing, they reckon agnostic is some intellectually superior position when they just don't understand the terms.

---

I mean, if you want to go around just saying you are "an agnostic" then you can do that. It just doesn't make any sense.

People that call themselves as agnostic, as a middle term should have a lesson on logic 101. To me they are just pussy atheists.

Lol

I mean, I'd never want to stop people calling themselves whatever they want. I'm just trying to let people know what that's going to mean to someone else.

This business about rejecting claims not being the same as saying the claim is false is subtle. It took me a while to get it myself when I first got serious about atheism. I don't think most people can see the distinction.

I think people want to see agnostic as keeping options open, but atheism does just that. An atheist doesn't by default say there is no God.

I wonder if there is a term that describes specifically the acceptance of the claim "God does not exist" in the affirmative.

Hmmm. Interesting, I've not heard of that one. But I would be that, given the standard ludicrous definitions of "God". Given the statement, "no creator exists" I would reject on grounds of unknowability.

It's called gnostic atheism.