Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Cyberman]

Next time you are out in public, walk up to a complete stranger and say "I dont know", don't say anything else. I would bet my life they are going to say "You don't know what?" The simply repeat "I don't know". Keep repeating that and nothing else until they walk away from you because they think you are nuts.

For better results, do the opposite; glare at the stranger menacingly and say "I know". Most people are going to think you're crazy, but I guarantee there'll be a few that freak out thinking you really have caught them out.

[Ravenshire]

Let me first define true atheism

No. Your claim is bogus and your ignorance is glaring. You do not get to come here and tell us what we believe.

[dyresand]

Let me first define true atheism

No. Your claim is bogus and your ignorance is glaring. You do not get to come here and tell us what we believe.

Let me first define true atheism it is the default stance of a issue pertaining to deities and god. The current problem with a system of believers only use faith and belief to justify that said god or deities exist without historical or physical evidence of one that does exist. It is that reason why atheists exist is the lack of evidence and proof of a god even though theists say such biblical holy books exist because of god when it is merely creations of ancient man. yet society gives atheism a bad name when they are more peaceful and humanitarian than their theist counter parts.

[Whateverist]

Let me first define true atheism

One good turn deserves another. Allow me to define true theism. Theism is the bare hunch that there is more happening behind the scenes than there is any evidence for. God is essentially a conspiracy theory. Once someone declares their strong belief in God, every little fact is either exalted or swept under the rug to reinforce what should only ever be held by faith. Every theist that lapses into to gnosticism abandons faith in exchange for the certainty of their ego's own reflection.

You have a blessed day now, IDKScience, you hear?

[bennyboy]

And what if someone is neither theist nor atheist, but is agnostic?

IDK, it would be difficult to establish that such a person exists. An -hardcore- apatheist maybe (though even this isn;t quite the same)? A super neutral neutral. Someone who really can't say with confidence whether they believe or not. They claim no knowledge -about their own beliefs/lack thereof-. Might be folks like that, never met any myself. You?

(seems to me that it might be a case of the ole "not everything we imagine exists", particularly, not every type of person we imagine actually has a representative in reality)

I am one, and I can explain why. I think reality transcends language-- and language breaks down long before you reach the truth. I believe that there's something deeper to the universe, something that makes sentience, for example, possible or even necessary. Some missing piece of the puzzle is lurking just behind everything I experience-- like a canvas under a painting.

But what is this, and what would it be called? Is it an entity with a name? A philosophical principle? Just an idea? A singularity?

I think if people ever come into contact with a deeper sense of that, whatever it is, they must necessarily have experiences that will be indescribable by words, and that they must therefore resort to metaphor. Words like "God" and "reality," I think, mean very little at the boundary conditions of our human experience-- frankly, I don't think we have the apparatus to tell one from the other. All we can do is scratch our heads, stare in the mirror, and try to figure out who that bald monkey looking back at us is.

That's why I'm agnostic-- I believe that whatever underlies reality could be CALLED God if you chose to, but I know that when most people ask the question, they're not talking about that-- they're talking about an obvious fiction. So I'm not willing to take a position, other than "I don't know what you're asking about, and neither do you." And if the question is not found to be defined, then how is one to take a position on it, one way or the other?

[Whateverist]

That's why I'm agnostic-- I believe that whatever underlies reality could be CALLED God if you chose to, but I know that when most people ask the question, they're not talking about that-- they're talking about an obvious fiction. So I'm not willing to take a position, other than "I don't know what you're asking about, and neither do you." And if the question is not found to be defined, then how is one to take a position on it, one way or the other?

I also can allow for some meaning for the idea of a god .. but I don't think it has anything to do with reality as in the cosmos. I have to scale god way down to the personal level to work it in. I think within each person there is a greater consciousness of which we, consciously, are only a part. The whole is always greater than the part, right?

It is the way that our organisms assemble themselves which is amazing. It happens on the physical level and something like that happens mentally/psychically as well. Whatever it is that assembles us can be god. Why not, our creator right? But it isn't some older entity that exists in another dimension. It, this 'god', comes into being right along side of us, again and again. If god is 'everywhere' it is only in the sense that we are so ubiquitous, at least on this planet.

[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).

It's not strange at all not to be able to resolve a question into a single answer, and many reasons why "I don't know" doesn't imply your assessment of your knowledge about something. For example, if I ask you "Do you think 'x' is true?" You could answer that you don't believe in 'x'. But you could also say, "Until you tell me what 'x' means, then I don't know whether I have a belief that represents it or not." I wouldn't say I default to a-xism because I'm incapable of forming an active belief.

So if you DEFINE God, I'm very likely to say that I'm either an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist. "God is Sky Daddy." Nope. "God is the subjective spark which makes us more than machines." Weird, but yep.

If you cannot adequately define God, then my position is: "wtf you talkin' about, Linus?"

---

I am giving you a BETTER definition.

Great. Define "better" while you're at it.

Are you CURRENTLY agnostic about unicorns? You would still have to admit since you have not lived the future that "technically" you have to be "agnostic" since we cannot no with 100% certainty.

I'm an agnostic a-unicornist, because my mind can resolve that question down to a single answer-- no, I don't believe unicorns are real, and in fact I believe they are false. The agnosticism isn't about unicorns-- it's about my confidence in my disbelief in unicorns.

So the term agnostic atheist is not contradictory.

No, it's not contradictory, and it probably desribes 90% of atheists.

Now Huxley took a Greek prefix and a Greek suffix that were never used in ancient Greece together. But when you properly use them individually separately this is how they are defined.

Prefix "a"=without

Suffix="gnosis or gnostic"=knowledge.

NETHER that prefix or suffix say anything about subject matter or position. So the word has to be put in front of something for it to make sense.

Answers are partially defined by the context in which they are given. If someone is unable to answer a question, or even to establish a leaning toward an answer, then agnosticism is itself a viable position.

Next time you are out in public, walk up to a complete stranger and say "I dont know", don't say anything else. I would bet my life they are going to say "You don't know what?" The simply repeat "I don't know". Keep repeating that and nothing else until they walk away from you because they think you are nuts.

That is why I say "I don't know" is not a position. It has to go in front of something to make sense.

Okay, let's try this. Is there a boobledyboo on my desk? Hint-- boobledyboo is a common household object.

Are you going to claim that you're an agnostic a-boobledybooist?

---

There are gnostics and agnostics on either side.

So the extreme left/right position, in lack of a better word, would be "I know, god exists" and "I know, god doesn't exist".

I call myself an agnostic atheist, but I'm tending more to gnostic atheism when it comes to the biblical god.

And what if someone is neither theist nor atheist, but is agnostic?

Holy crap, have you not read my prior posts. The moron who invented that word long ago cobbled it together to make a horrible word that has infected people with bad use of logic. The Greeks never had a word for "inbetween". Huxley invented that bullshit word and it has been infecting human logic ever since. Here is the original meaning of the prefix and suffix that NEVER were put together by the Greeks.

Greek prefix "a"=without
Greek suffix "gnosis,"

agnostic=without knowledge. Which is NOT a word the ancient Greeks actually used. Huxley invented that stupid word centuries later.

Now if you think that is a position by itself. Next time you are out in public walk up to a complete stranger and say "I don't know", don't say anything else, just "I don't know". They are going to look at you and say "what is it you don't know about". The just say again "I don't know", then they will look at you and ask again, or walk away because they think you are nuts. Now here are some better definitions IF IF IF people still insist on using that word, lets use that invented word PROPERLY in context of past present and future.

If you think a god exists CURRENTLY, but or not sure what to call it or what it is made of, and are open to a future that you are unsure of,

Then you are an agnostic theist.

If you are sure CURRENTLY that you have the right god, and are certain in the future no one will prove that wrong, then you are

A theist, like a Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, Or Mormon or Muslim

If you CURRENTLY hold no belief in a god and your CURRENT position is "off" , but are unsure about the future,

Then you are an agnostic atheist.

If you are CURRENTLY in the "off" position but SURE about the future that there will never be a god filling the gaps,

Then you are a flat out atheist.

Now for me personally, I only call my self an "agnostic" atheist in a very semantic sense for "technical" reasons that "technically" I have not lived my future yet. But even with that "technicality" unless I suffer some brain injury or illness, or PTSD, with what I am armed with, and baring a scientific discovery of a god, I do not see myself changing my position in my lucid state.

My current position is "off", my glass is empty in holding the position of a god. I am only "technically" agnostic about the future because I have not lived it yet.

That puts the word "agnostic" in a more proper context as per the meaning of the Greek prefix and suffix. Huxley did not add in the other factors of time frame on top of "I dont know" is not a position itself.

[Asmodee]

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am one, and I can explain why. I think reality transcends language-- and language breaks down long before you reach the truth. I believe that there's something deeper to the universe, something that makes sentience, for example, possible or even necessary. Some missing piece of the puzzle is lurking just behind everything I experience-- like a canvas under a painting.

But what is this, and what would it be called? Is it an entity with a name? A philosophical principle? Just an idea? A singularity?

I think if people ever come into contact with a deeper sense of that, whatever it is, they must necessarily have experiences that will be indescribable by words, and that they must therefore resort to metaphor. Words like "God" and "reality," I think, mean very little at the boundary conditions of our human experience-- frankly, I don't think we have the apparatus to tell one from the other. All we can do is scratch our heads, stare in the mirror, and try to figure out who that bald monkey looking back at us is.

That's why I'm agnostic-- I believe that whatever underlies reality could be CALLED God if you chose to, but I know that when most people ask the question, they're not talking about that-- they're talking about an obvious fiction. So I'm not willing to take a position, other than "I don't know what you're asking about, and neither do you." And if the question is not found to be defined, then how is one to take a position on it, one way or the other?

But they -do- know what they're talking about, and you - for your part- have called it obvious fiction. You know what you believe about gods. You may be agnostic -about gods nebulously defined-, but you aren't agnostic about the -status of your own beliefs-.

-and btw, I could -call- a toaster a god. Here again, not everything we imagine.......are you agnostic about your beliefs regarding my toaster god? Do you not know your own mind- and if so..then how do you know that you're "one of those people"?