(December 29, 2015 at 12:11 am)paulpablo Wrote:(December 24, 2015 at 2:05 am)Delicate Wrote: Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.
On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.
But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.
You gave this as a link as to the reasoning behind why atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive. There's no reasoning in these paragraphs it's just you making the same statements. Starting a sentence with the words "Properly speaking," isn't reasoning, it's still just a statement. And you saying the definition of atheism is inconsistent doesn't make it inconsistent.
(December 29, 2015 at 12:18 am)paulpablo Wrote:(December 22, 2015 at 11:42 pm)Delicate Wrote: https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908
Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.
Which are you?
Even if someone is incompetent and incapable or competent and capable of seeing evidence it makes no difference to the definitions of atheism or being agnostic.
(December 29, 2015 at 12:20 am)paulpablo Wrote:(December 22, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Delicate Wrote: If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge, you wouldn't have a category for both in your epistemology.
Love,
Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge.
PS- Ask me to explain.
This is the third link you gave me in reply to me asking for reasoning behind you saying that the definition of atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive and again these are just statements.
There's no reasoning to the statements or any use of definitions from a dictionary or Wikipedia or use of any logic, it's just you repeating the claim that you're right about this topic with no explanation.
I think it's best to start from a more basic place. Presumably we can start off by agreeing on some common ground. Namely,
1) regardless of which definition one prefers, the lack of belief definition is new. It's a revision of the established, historically prevalent definition.
2) incompetent atheism is irrational and ought not to be taken seriously.
3) someone who is informed about epistemology will find it nonsensical and self-refuting to have knowledge and belief as distinct categories and take both seriously because belief category is missing either justification or fails to take a truth value.
If the above views are reasonable, then everything I've said in the links follows.
So naturally the first question for you is which of the premises you have a problem with? And then, based on your answer, I'll explain how they lead to my conclusion.
