RE: What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?
March 28, 2017 at 11:06 am
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2017 at 11:12 am by Whateverist.)
(March 27, 2017 at 2:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Condescending prick
Somebody get the soap. We've got a dirty Christian mouth. I think you are being assimilated here, Cath-y.
(March 27, 2017 at 9:33 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:(March 27, 2017 at 12:26 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Not to pile on what others have already said, if the question is "do you currently BELIEVE that a god exists?", and you answer anything other than "yes", you are an atheist.
All that it takes to be an atheist, is to not be convinced that a god exists.
"Agnosticism" is the position that it is currently unknown if a god exists (and possibly unknowable), it is NOT some sort of fence sitting position between belief that a god exists, and disbelief. That is the colloquial definition, not the formal one.
Not only that, but it is my contention, that fence sitting between belief and disbelief is not even possible. Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts a premise or proposition is true, or they do not have that belief.
Most atheists are "agnostic atheists" ( the 2 positions are not mutually exclusive), even Dawkins.
It really grinds my gears when I hear an "agnostic" say that they "neither believe nor disbelieve in a god", as if such a middle ground exists. To disbelieve something is to not believe something. Saying anything/anyone is neither X or its direct logical negation is in violation of the logical absolutes, which is asinine. It's like saying "I neither like nor don't like Coca Cola".
Also, "do you believe in god" is a yes/no question. When "agnostics" answer with "I don't know", that means (a) their answer is actually no, and (b) they didn't even answer the question properly. I really wish people could get this right.
Me too to what I bolded. I take it a strong agnostic stance to the belief question is "it is impossible to say". To which the rest of us want ask "so what is your inclination toward statements which are impossible to resolve"? Routinely accept them? Routinely reject them? Do you take on some degree of provisional belief to balance out the lack of belief you had before you considered the proposition? How exactly does the supposed impossibility of knowing result in your "maybe believing"?
