Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[FatAndFaithless]

what about "no opinion, therefore I disagree because I obviously don't agree that the HTC is better than the s5"?

Do you actually know if those are actual phones or just made up hypotheticals? Because I really don't. Therefore I really have no opinion (am agnostic) regarding Max's belief.

Why do you think I should therefore disagree with his belief? It doesn't at all follow that I don't agree. Rather, I can't agree. But it is equally true that I can't disagree. I simply have no basis for forming an opinion in either direction.

Of course a major difference between Max's example and the god question is that I am aware that actual phones exist, I just don't stay current on what models are available. I don't know if any gods exist. But I suspect the whole god question is nonsense, something I don't feel in regard to the phone question. Being a phone is a meaningful category for me; I have a reasonable chance of identifying a phone when I see one. Being a god is more problematic because I've never seen one. Worse, there is little agreement as to what the nature of such a thing would be. Since I have a working category into which I would sort many fanciful creatures and human-like beings from folklore and mythology, I suspect that the xtian god is one of these. I fully understand that such beings were or are more than that to the people for whom the bible is more than folklore. But that would have also been the case at other times for those who believed in the Norse gods or the Greek gods.

I think a better example is the jelly beans in a jar problem.

I show you a jar of jelly beans, the number of beans is either even (god exists) or odd (god doesnt exist). Those are the only two options.

I, a theist, assert to you that the number of beans is even.

You don't have enough evidence to convince you that the number of beans is even, therefore you do not accept my assertion that the number is even (god exists).

You are NOT asserting that the number is odd (god doesn't exist), you are simply rejecting the claim that the number is even.

Even if you think it's impossible to know the number of beans, or don't care about the number of beans, or think the number of beans is irrelevant to your life, you still do not accept the claim that the number is even as you don't have enough evidence for it.

If you don't have an opinion on whether or not god exists, then I do believe that makes you an atheist (as well as an a-antitheist...stupuid latin prefixes), since you are not asserting one way or another. Atheism is just the default state for the claim "God exists", like a-antitheism is the default state for the claim "God does NOT exist."

[Whateverist]

If you don't have an opinion on whether or not god exists, then I do believe that makes you an atheist (as well as an a-antitheist...stupuid latin prefixes), since you are not asserting one way or another. Atheism is just the default state for the claim "God exists", like a-antitheism is the default state for the claim "God does NOT exist."

I don't disagree. But I'm not so sure that godlessness is the default state for the human mind. (And I do realize you were not addressing this point directly.) Possibly the opposite is true. Perhaps it is only with a sufficient grasp of natural science that we come to doubt that our 'imaginary friends' are not 'out there'. Animism may well be the default position for all uneducated human minds, and persist even in some who are very well educated.

[FatAndFaithless]

If you don't have an opinion on whether or not god exists, then I do believe that makes you an atheist (as well as an a-antitheist...stupuid latin prefixes), since you are not asserting one way or another. Atheism is just the default state for the claim "God exists", like a-antitheism is the default state for the claim "God does NOT exist."

I don't disagree. But I'm not so sure that godlessness is the default state for the human mind. (And I do realize you were not addressing this point directly.) Possibly the opposite is true. Perhaps it is only with a sufficient grasp of natural science that we come to doubt that our 'imaginary friends' are not 'out there'. Animism may well be the default position for all uneducated human minds, and persist even in some who are very well educated.

I wasn't really talking about the 'default position' as in human nature or our brain wiring, just the default position in the logical argument sense.

[archangle]

I don't disagree. But I'm not so sure that godlessness is the default state for the human mind. (And I do realize you were not addressing this point directly.) Possibly the opposite is true. Perhaps it is only with a sufficient grasp of natural science that we come to doubt that our 'imaginary friends' are not 'out there'. Animism may well be the default position for all uneducated human minds, and persist even in some who are very well educated.

I wasn't really talking about the 'default position' as in human nature or our brain wiring, just the default position in the logical argument sense.

no.

You mean traits. You have no evidence of "no nothing". You, indeed we, only have evidence of things like "probably not created in 6 days."

You need some more learning before running your mouth so aggressively. This dude whatever may be able to learnt you something if you listen. But you won't.

[FatAndFaithless]

I wasn't really talking about the 'default position' as in human nature or our brain wiring, just the default position in the logical argument sense.

no.

You mean traits. You have no evidence of "no nothing". You, indeed we, only have evidence of things like "probably not created in 6 days."

You need some more learning before running your mouth so aggressively. This dude whatever may be able to learnt you something if you listen. But you won't.

..Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.. I was just giving an example of what I thought illustrated the atheist vs antitheist position..

[archangle]

no.

You mean traits. You have no evidence of "no nothing". You, indeed we, only have evidence of things like "probably not created in 6 days."

You need some more learning before running your mouth so aggressively. This dude whatever may be able to learnt you something if you listen. But you won't.

..Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.. I was just giving an example of what I thought illustrated the atheist vs antitheist position..

anti-theist. That is personal. Like I am anti-murder. I shoot the fuker. I am anti-anti-theist. Like I am against the KKK and I am white. I will fight with the black man to stop them. It does not mean I "am" black. I am an atheist.

Atheist just means I don't believe in a deity. It carries the same weight as aliver. I don't eat liver. nothing more. Some of my best friends eat liver.

but focus on making claims. And how it is done with reasonable people. Please. pretty please even. I'll lick your feet if you learn understand how it is done.

[FatAndFaithless]

..Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.. I was just giving an example of what I thought illustrated the atheist vs antitheist position..

anti-theist. That is personal. Like I am anti-murder. I shoot the fuker. I am anti-anti-theist. Like I am against the KKK and I am white. I will fight with the black man to stop them. It does not mean I "am" black. I am an atheist.

Atheist just means I don't believe in a deity. It carries the same weight as aliver. I don't eat liver. nothing more. Some of my best friends eat liver.

Wow.

[archangle]

anti-theist. That is personal. Like I am anti-murder. I shoot the fuker. I am anti-anti-theist. Like I am against the KKK and I am white. I will fight with the black man to stop them. It does not mean I "am" black. I am an atheist.

Atheist just means I don't believe in a deity. It carries the same weight as aliver. I don't eat liver. nothing more. Some of my best friends eat liver.

Wow.

That's a good start.

thank you.

[MindForgedManacle]

That's all atheism is.

Pretty much only atheists online use that definition of atheism, which pretty much pits them up against a cultural-linguistic wall, mostly because they just want to avoid the burden of proof.

This is why no one asks you "Do you believe X is true, or do you merely lack belief that it's true?" The question is hardly meaningful, and calling atheism anything other than the belief that theism is false/no gods exist raises seveeal issues I've already brought up in this thread.

Atheism is not rational thinking because not all atheists are rational thinkers. There's nothing stopping an atheist from believing in ridiculous conspiracy theories or alien abductions because these don't involve deities.

Atheism isn't about understanding evolution because people can accept evolution while only having a vague idea how it works.

I agree. I don't know where I implied atheism had anything to do with those things.

Atheism has nothing to do with superior intelligence. Many religious people are highly intelligent.

Atheism doesn't involve rules and regulations about what atheists should and shouldn't do. When I was on another forum a few years ago there were some atheists insisting that atheists shouldn't celebrate Christmas. I was very amused when Richard Dawkins said he's a cultural Christian.

Atheism doesn't mean people can't do meditation if they feel like it. Susan Blackmore explores the nature of consciousness using Zen meditation. Sam Harris also meditates much to the horror of some atheists who regarded him as a heretic.

Once people start attaching ideas such as these to atheism they're inventing an ideology of atheism.

Again, where did I do that? Regardless, atheism is at least a small component of an ideology.

[Whateverist]

That's all atheism is.

Pretty much only atheists online use that definition of atheism, which pretty much pits them up against a cultural-linguistic wall, mostly because they just want to avoid the burden of proof.

This is why no one asks you "Do you believe X is true, or do you merely lack belief that it's true?" The question is hardly meaningful, and calling atheism anything other than the belief that theism is false/no gods exist raises seveeal issues I've already brought up in this thread.

What evidence do you have to show that "only atheists online us that definition"? I'm not sure whether that is true or not, so I can't grant it as a premise.

Somewhere recently MaxG used an example involving two models of phone to illustrate the theist/atheist/agnostic responses. Someone who believes phone A asserts that is so and asks who agrees.

One response was to agree with the person who asserted the superiority of phone A over phone B. (Theist, shares the belief.)

Another response was to disagree because they actually believe phone B is at least as good as phone A. (Atheist, thinks their belief to be mistaken.)

The third response is to reply they don't know which brand is better. (Agnostic, no basis for an opinion.)


Personally I hold no belief in gods so I am an atheist, and I think it is important to state it that way. By doing so I'm actually providing more information. Not only do I suspect the xtian god is just one more in a long line of fanciful beings from ancient folklore, but also, I am stating that I am unaware of any unconscious tendencies toward such belief. I don't have any sense of an omnipresent observer/judge in moral matters. I don't fear reprisal from an omnipotent being. In short, I detect nothing in my feelings, emotions, thoughts or dreams which would indicate the existence of such a belief. By comparison, to merely state that, on the evidence, I don't believe such a being exists is less informative.