RE: Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"
June 26, 2014 at 4:55 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2014 at 4:56 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 26, 2014 at 4:44 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(June 26, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Still not correct.
All disbelief is, is that one does not believe a claim or claims.
It does not mean that one necessarily believes the contrapositive claim.
You are trying to force atheism to be a response to 2 prongs of dilemma simultaneously, when it is clearly not.
I'm sorry, but you are being pedantic. If someone says they disbelieve something, it is nearly always meant as "i believe X is false". You disbelieve in Santa Claus, yes?
I disbelieve in Santa AND I also believe Santa does not exist.
Quote:No I'm not, this has nothing to do with a dilemma at all. I'M an atheist, wjhy would I do that? I just value being clear and inline by what people actually mean by the words they use.
There are 2 truth claims when it comes to gods;
1. god/gods exists
2. god/gods do not exist
Atheism is a response to the first truth claim, it is not necessarily the second.
Many atheists do take the second position, but only being unconvinced of the first is what defines atheism.
I value using terms correctly, and correcting people when they use them incorrectly.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
