Agnostic Skepticism- My Views

[robvalue]

Riddle: do you, or do you not acknowledge that you are using terms to mean different things to us?

If you insist we are using them to mean the same thing, when we're literally telling you we don't mean the same thing as you, I don't know what I can tell you.

[RiddledWithFear]

Fine, fair enough. I'll use this forum's definition. Apologies for such a hassle.

---

Riddle: do you, or do you not acknowledge that you are using terms to mean different things to us?

If you insist we are using them to mean the same thing, when we're literally telling you we don't mean the same thing as you, I don't know what I can tell you.

Yes, I concede. I apologize. I have a tendency to (stubbornly) hold on to things just to be right.

[robvalue]

It's fine. You don't have to use any definitions. It's just a matter of being clear what you mean. Discussion is pointless if terms aren't agreed.

I'm happy to use whatever definitions you want for any given discussion. But what isn't acceptable to me is to then try and use my definitions to make a point after we've agreed to use yours; or vice versa. That's called an equivocation fallacy.

No one expects you to call yourself an atheist while you are here. But if you insist you are "different" to us, we're going to take issue, when you describe exactly the same position. I call that "elite agnosticism". We've had a few here like that.

Of course, some of us are strong atheists. But it depends what the claim is. You're probably a strong atheist regarding certain claims.

(Not that I'm any kind of authority here. I'm just giving my opinion.)

[Edwardo Piet]

Well to start off "neither a theist nor non-theist" literally makes as little sense as "neither married nor unmarried".

Hate to over-dramatize it, but one can't afford the luxury of having either belief.

But that's just it... "non-theist" includes people who have no belief either way just as much as people who believe gods are improbable or impossible. Non-theism includes everything other than theism. Literally.

[RiddledWithFear]

It's fine. You don't have to use any definitions. It's just a matter of being clear what you mean. Discussion is pointless if terms aren't agreed.

I'm happy to use whatever definitions you want for any given discussion. But what isn't acceptable to me is to then try and use my definitions to make a point after we've agreed to use yours; or vice versa. That's called an equivocation fallacy.

No one expects you to call yourself an atheist while you are here. But if you insist you are "different" to us, we're going to take issue, when you describe exactly the same position. I call that "elite agnosticism". We've had a few here like that.

I understand, yes. To be fair, I was never insistent on being different. It was a pointless discussion about different interpretations of terminology, however, and for that, I apologize.

[Edwardo Piet]

the important thing is you seem like a nice person.

[Jesster]

I always love these threads.

[RiddledWithFear]

Hate to over-dramatize it, but one can't afford the luxury of having either belief.

But that's just it... "non-theist" includes people who have no belief either way just as much as people who believe gods are improbable or impossible. Non-theism includes everything other than theism. Literally.

Fair enough.

[robvalue]

If you understand that to us, atheist generally means "not a theist", you'll see how it works. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. It's that simple.

But seriously, if you want to call that religious scepticism, or agnosticism, or anything else, that's totally fine. It's just there is no discussion to even have; it's the same thing. You're just highlighting the fact that you're not a strong atheist, by our definition. People assuming all atheists are strong atheists is a common problem and could do with clarifying in general.

EDIT: I see this is redundant

[RiddledWithFear]

the important thing is you seem like a nice person.

Thank you.