[split]Atheism is based of ignorance.

[Esquilax]

Actually they are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be about what one believes.

Not according to the real world, Vin. Look at the root word for agnosticism: it means knowledge, not belief. Take a long hard look at what it means in terms of religion, too.

Is this seriously your strategy, here? Just take an end run around actually demonstrating anything by forcibly attempting to change the definitions of words?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Actually they are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be about what one believes.

Not according to the real world, Vin. Look at the root word for agnosticism: it means knowledge, not belief. Take a long hard look at what it means in terms of religion, too.

Is this seriously your strategy, here? Just take an end run around actually demonstrating anything by forcibly attempting to change the definitions of words?

The etymological origins of the word agnostic don't inform it's role as a belief vs knowledge. It defines what agnostic means.

A + Gnosis is a negation of knowledge, namely the claim that "It is impossible to know whether God exists or does not exist."

Applying the label agnostic to oneself, it makes no difference whether you "believe" or "know" that "it is impossible to know whether God does or does not exist". But ultimately, these labels serve as ideological labels, so instead of postulating contradictory knowledge (Ie, one group knows God exists, another group knows God doesn't exist- contradiction alert), we just state it in terms of beliefs.

[Whateverist]

Actually they are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be about what one believes.

Not according to the real world, Vin. Look at the root word for agnosticism: it means knowledge, not belief. Take a long hard look at what it means in terms of religion, too.

Is this seriously your strategy, here? Just take an end run around actually demonstrating anything by forcibly attempting to change the definitions of words?

Vinny seems to be disintegrating. He used to be a lot harder to sort out. Now he just says dumb shit. Guess he's giving up.

[Esquilax]

The etymological origins of the word agnostic don't inform it's role as a belief vs knowledge. It defines what agnostic means.

And apparently what defines its role in this is the singular opinion of some random with a Batderp avatar?

A + Gnosis is a negation of knowledge, namely the claim that "It is impossible to know whether God exists or does not exist."

Yeah, negation of knowledge, just like asymmetry is a negation of symmetry, and not just something without symmetry.

Besides, for some reason you've dialed back the claim in question: the issue that agnosticism and atheism concerns itself with is whether or not a god exists, not whether or not it's impossible to know if one does.

Applying the label agnostic to oneself, it makes no difference whether you "believe" or "know" that "it is impossible to know whether God does or does not exist".

I'm really at a loss as to why you've chosen to phrase the claim like that.

But ultimately, these labels serve as ideological labels, so instead of postulating contradictory knowledge (Ie, one group knows God exists, another group knows God doesn't exist- contradiction alert), we just state it in terms of beliefs.

That's why it's a claim of knowledge, and not outright knowledge itself. Two entities can claim to know mutually contradictory things, though obviously only one may be true.

[Lemonvariable72]

Not according to the real world, Vin. Look at the root word for agnosticism: it means knowledge, not belief. Take a long hard look at what it means in terms of religion, too.

Is this seriously your strategy, here? Just take an end run around actually demonstrating anything by forcibly attempting to change the definitions of words?

The etymological origins of the word agnostic don't inform it's role as a belief vs knowledge. It defines what agnostic means.

A + Gnosis is a negation of knowledge, namely the claim that "It is impossible to know whether God exists or does not exist."

Applying the label agnostic to oneself, it makes no difference whether you "believe" or "know" that "it is impossible to know whether God does or does not exist". But ultimately, these labels serve as ideological labels, so instead of postulating contradictory knowledge (Ie, one group knows God exists, another group knows God doesn't exist- contradiction alert), we just state it in terms of beliefs.

Your right, hence push any of us and most of us will agree you cannot know there is no god. I why don;t you apply this sort of criticism and thought to theists, that do calim to know.

[downbeatplumb]

A + Gnosis is a negation of knowledge, namely the claim that "It is impossible to know whether God exists or does not exist."

I suppose given this definition it is possible to be an agnostic theist which would seem to what Frodo used to lean towards.


But if they don't believe in god then they would be agnostic atheists.

See how that works.

If someone doesn't believe in god they are an atheist, the reason they don't believe or even the strength of their conviction is unimportant.

[Whateverist]

A + Gnosis is a negation of knowledge, namely the claim that "It is impossible to know whether God exists or does not exist."

I suppose given this definition it is possible to be an agnostic theist which would seem to what Frodo used to lean towards.


But if they don't believe in god then they would be agnostic atheists.

See how that works.

If someone doesn't believe in god they are an atheist, the reason they don't believe or even the strength of their conviction is unimportant.

Correct. When I find no evidence or experience of what is being asked then, not having been coerced at a young age, I don't believe in weird shit for which no evidence is available. My being agnostic goes to the lack of evidence of any kind, for or against. It says nothing about my confidence level. I don't register any 'confidence level' when the matter under discussion is too poorly defined or lacking in evidence.

That shouldn't be interpreted as uncertainty regarding the existence of god. I'm entirely certain that I don't believe in any. I'm simply not at all certain what counts as a god. Since I lack any reliable information about gods, I have no basis to make any pronouncements one way or the other.

The situation is analogous to the night when I was very young and sent out with a bag to hunt snipe. I was never entirely sure what a snipe was but I did go out and yell "snipe!" for a while before I gave up. The experience afforded me no conclusive evidence as to whether or not snipe exist. I do know that I no longer believe in snipe and my hunch is that the adults were just having some fun at my expense. So I'm as agnostic toward snipe as I am toward gods. I am also as a-snipist as I am a-theist.

However, I'm not an anti-snipest. I don't really care if some adults believe in snipe though I think they're pretty gullible. The same goes for gods. I'm sure many adults really do believe in gods but the importance they attach to this doesn't make it any more urgent an issue to my mind than the question of whether snipe exist. There may well be a snipe-hell for those who don't believe, but if there is, I'll be proud to be admitted.

[Mister Agenda]

Or, rather, not believe.

If you don't believe in God, a higher power, anything transcendent, eternal immaterial whatever you want to call it that is relevant to us beyond and/or within the physical universe then you believe the opposite of the existence of this.

That does not follow. I don't believe you own a Persian cat. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe you DON'T own a Persian cat.

If you're not sure either way you make up your mind, not being sure doesn't win the argument.

True, lack of certainty isn't a great way to win arguments, its primary virtue is honesty.

Claiming we can't know for certain won't work either as I'm just going to agree with you.

You've mistaken a position for an argument.

So I think I have cut through line of argument meaning you'll have to defend your actual metaphysical belief, why you believe it and what you like about it.

Because when you simply ask us, you don't get the answers you need to justify what you want to think of us.

That's the part I'm interested in not the smoke screens you place around. The Sword of Christ will cut through all that obscurantism and flak and gets right to the heart the action.

You're not the sword of Christ. It's just a username. You need to check yourself.

Are there any good reasons to believe that this universe is all there is, that we came essentially from nothing or random chance coincidence, we're here for no purpose and we when we die there is nothing else?

If the alternative is to believe things that are indistinguishable from make-believe, no further case needs to be made for not assuming beyond what we can know.

Is there a good reason to assume that all religious, spiritual, mystical experience is a delusion/hallucination and all religions are 100% false and a lie?

The fact that none of them can be distinguished from delusions.

I would like to see these arguments, the meat and gravy of it, the sustenance.

It's possible that what you believe is so (provided you don't believe in something with contradictory properties or actual evidence against it, as many theists do). However, we have no good reason to believe that what you believe is so. There's nothing more to it. We note that everything you offer is severely flawed and we wouldn't accept that kind of argument on any other topic, either.

It would take more faith for me to be an atheist. (classic line).

As long as it would take faith for you to be an atheist, in my opinion, you shouldn't be one. We're not trying to recruit you.

There is some truth to it though I don't see how a universe this complex or beings as complex as ourselves could be coincidental or unintentional.

That is another classic line, and it illustrates the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. It carries no more weight than someone saying they don't see how a universe as chaotic as ours and beings as confused as we are could be the products of something supremely wise and powerful.

Blind natural forces at work without a goal or destination in mind.

That's actually a scientific question. When we investigate natural forces do we find them to have a goal or destination? Never. Not once. The place where such planning should be the most evident, the development of life, only reveals chance and the rules of chemistry and probability.

And certainly if you look at the impact God has had in human history, much for the good, you're saying this is a delusion of the human brain? Are you sure you're not fighting against the evidence?

Are you sure that you're not so biased that you can't even imagine all the concepts you presumably disagree with that this argument would support if applied consistently? Other gods besides the one you're thinking of? Ideas now known to have been mistaken? This is an argument from consequences, and is evidence-free.

Right so it's a fantasy people entertain to be happy you believe this. Why do you believe this?

You have a habit of mis-supposing what people think. You have the right to believe what you want. We're not going out of our way to argue with you. If you don't engage us, you don't have to hear what we have to say. There's no arguing with faith in the sense of believing things you know aren't justified by evidence. The people who don't actually have that kind of faith (they want to believe that the evidence actually IS on their side, in which case faith is not required to believe it) are the type who show up here.

Why are you believing the claims of materialist naturalism? You don't know these claims are true.

I don't know of anyone who converted to 'materialist naturalism'. It's just something that is still standing once you no longer accept that people who make mystical claims know what they're talking about. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that whenever we find a verifiable explanation for something, it's never anything unnatural.

Belief in God is a vice but pure physical materialism and naturalism is somehow a lofty virtuous thing?

Belief in things without good reason is a vice. Possibly you have had personal experiences sufficient to justify your belief in God. Your personal experiences do not justify other people believing in God. Belief in God would only be a vice if it is unjustified. Not being able to prove it to others doesn't mean it's unjustified. Thinking that you can prove it to others without evidence beyone your own testimony tends to discredit the hypothesis that your belief is so justified. If God extended his grace to save me, I wouldn't expect others to take my word for it unless my mind were somehow damaged in the process.

Is this a reaction against of the excesses of religious belief?

No. It's a reaction to finding out that there's no good reason to believe God is real.

But you know belief in God has inspired much good in the world as well right? It's not all Inquisitions and Crusades.

If it was all puppies and fluffy bunnies, it would not add one percent to the probability of it being true.

---

I posted five useful philosophical developments and the philosophers who were behind them.

I don't dispute the value of philosophy. But you've posted no such thing in this thread.

---

What is the % increase in atheists year on year in 'murica? If it goes up relative to population growth, then doesn't that sort of dismiss your thesis, unless of course whatever god it is that you refer to wants more people to remain atheist from birth?

In a series of Gallup polls asking the question 'Do you consider yourself an atheist?', in the USA the percentage was about 1% in 1990, about 3% in 2005, and about 5% in 2012.

---

Sorry,but strong atheism proves God cannot exist.

Strong atheism is a position. Positions don't prove anything.

Too many problems. God's omniscience vs free will. Problem of evil. And more. Theism is simply intellectually disreputable. God is a failed hypothesis. Ignorance of the facts is why people remain religious believers.

I'm a strong atheist towards that version of God as well. But that version isn't the only version.

Knowledgeable strong atheists have conviction. When it comes to religion, we are all born ignorant. But strong atheists can learn God is a failed hypothesis and no longer be called ignorant.

The God of deism isn't self-contradictory, it only lacks evidence. I don't believe in that God either, but I am a weak atheist towards it.

---

Atheist is the default stance one takes when everything else lacks sufficient evidence. Where's the ignorance exactly?

Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

Good question. Agnosticism is about what you don't know. Atheism is about what you don't believe. Agnostic Atheist=doesn't know, doesn't believe. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

---

The two aren't mutually exclusive

Actually they are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be about what one believes.

Except one (agnosticism) doesn't. An agnostic can believe or not, but not claim they know.

[Brian37]

If ignorance is bliss then atheists ought to be more blissful than Buddha. I don't really think they are though, a restless heart is what they have.

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."

A Saint Augustine quote there. It's good because it's true.

No, it is "I am right because it feels right"

Facts survive labs, and can be applied to patient offices. Popularity is a dime a dozen.

[Walking Void]

Why did I come to this thread? I hate these petty mind games and playing with the wording in language.