Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Brian37]

Benny, note the jump in subject from your responses 1 and 2, to response number 3. The first two address belief, the third addresses knowledge claims. They aren't the same thing.

There are only two responses to the question "Do you believe in God", and those are
1) Yes, I affirmatively believe in god.
2) Anything else that is not an affirmative belief in god.

Even if you say "I don't know if I believe in god" (which would be strange, as it would imply you don't know what's going on in your own head), you would still be in category 2, i.e. not having an affirmative belief.

A/gnosticism is about the claim to knowledge, whether or not you know god exists or claim it as an epistemological truth. It isn't a confidence rating, it just a claim to either not know for sure (agnosticism) or to claim to know for sure (gnosticism).

I've actually had this argument before. The way you deliver your response matters quite a bit here. Yes, there is either belief (I believe God exists) or non-belief (I don't believe God exists) if you look at it that way, but there are actually 2 possible beliefs. All three of the following are valid

1) I believe God exists
2) I believe God does not exist
3) I hold no belief either way

And those are not the only three possible answers, either. Each person's beliefs or lack thereof are his or her own; theirs to have, theirs to define. You could answer "I believe there is SOMETHING. I don't know if I'd label it as God". What the hell does that mean? I have no idea, but it's a valid answer because the person giving it is expressing what their beliefs are.

In the argument I had before those who believed there were only 2 possible positions were working off a definition for atheism that, frankly, they just made up based on some chart of words and combinations of those words which were possible which could, in their opinion, definitively define a person's beliefs and, thus, label them without question. This was, of course, not true. They were getting hung up on definitions and insisting that those definitions which, again, they simply made up and agreed upon as a community, were 100% accurate, unquestionable, all the time, the end. The problem is they don't fit people who claim to be agnostic as it tries to shoehorn them into a label they are not comfortable with and, frankly, which doesn't fit them. If you want to get hung up on definitions then agnostic is a word with a definition as a valid position on religion. Beliefs are so varied from person to person that it's a little small-minded to think you can narrow people's beliefs down to 2 simple categories without question, in my opinion.

UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG and UGGGGGGGGGGGG


No you are being simple minded.

Nobody sits on the fence. That false position was stupidly concocted by Huxley.

Everyone as a degree of leaning one way or the other. If one leans to "I suspect there is, but I am not sure. That is still leaning. The only thing "Agnostic" can apply to is the future.

If you lean to "off" again, the only thing agnostic can refer to is the future.

Everyone still leans in one direction or the other. No different than a dimmer switch on a light. I can get brighter or dimmer but it cannot be both on and off at the same time.

Which way you lean still is separate than being sure or not sure.