[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[The Grand Nudger]

Now, according to you, atheists will have to clarify their alignment with agnosticism - right??? Something to that effect - right?

Why?

As Greene pointed out..yes, while it's not really a floating requirement to announce it, there is a difference between an agnostic atheist, and a gnostic atheist.   As mentioned, there are constant attempts by the faithful to saddle agnostics with some positive claim about gods existence.  The only positive claim that they're making is about their own personal status of belief.  

It's always made me giggle, as a gnostic atheist.  They spend so much effort trying to tell the other guys what they think that they don;t seem to have any gas left for people who actually do fit the bill.

Because "atheism," is inaccurately defined as simply lack of belief.

A lack of belief - in gods.  Let's at least try.  As a gnostic atheist, I have no lack of belief, it's just the one thing I don't believe in that I'm referring to...and unlike an agnostic atheist I feel very confident, or consider my position on this issue to be knowledge, if you prefer.  

The inanimate objects can be atheists, but they cannot be agnostic atheists, like most of the atheists here at AF - right? 
And, we are not sure about the agnostic alignment of the plants and animals.

This was covered pages ago.  Our "ists" explicitly refer to people.  A trained lizard isn't a "machinist" - but if nutballs want to argue over simple terms and their meanings by asking whether a lizard is an ist, then sure, lizards can be atheists just as much and for the same reason that human infants can be. Or children. Or adults. In fact, lizards can be agnostics just like atheists and theists can be, again for the same reasons.

That this failed attempt at reductio...well..fails..is another demonstration of why these terms and their definitions are adequate. Nutballs try to break them, and just can't get there. A lizard that we'll decide to call an agnostic atheist is a lizard that doesn't know whether or not a god exists, and doesn't believe in gods. Far as we can tell..pretty much any lizard. Equivalent in god knowledge and god beliefs, set apart only by ones lizardness and the others humanity.

[Mr Greene]

Generally the people who use the term 'agnostic' are atheists who are unsure of the reaction of theists and trying to sound less confrontational.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Generally the people who use the term 'agnostic' are atheists who are unsure of the reaction of theists and trying to sound less confrontational.

Oh, god damn it, now - the atheists are lying about it, or are they being truthful, because they are agnostic atheists - which is it???

[Mr.wizard]

No, an agnostic theist is someone who believes there is a god but acknowledges that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable.

OK, that's fine. 

 What god's nature is or what god is, is a separate question all together. 

Well, knowing about God's nature would probably include whether it exists or not, but OK. You're talking merely about existence. 

You are trying to make Agnosticism synonymous with Atheism, if that were the case then having an agnostic theist would not be possible, because that person would be saying they believe and don't believe in a god at the same time.

Please stop telling me that I'm a liar, that I'm trying to do something, etc. I don't know how we can talk about these things if you're doing your mind-reading act. 

I am not trying to do anything, other than to say that some people use the word "agnostic" to mean that they don't know, haven't made up their mind, aren't committed. You apparently only want it to be used to mean that the existence of God is unknowable. If you want to use it that way, cool. You can't make everybody obey you, however. 

In the sense you're using the words, agnostic atheism is possible. 

In the sense other people use the words, an agnostic hasn't made up his mind. 

Maybe the world would be a better place if everyone used language the way you do. Prof. Lunaphiles seems to think the world would be better if we used it the way he does. Oh well.

Wow you just aren't going to get this, sure lets everybody just use whatever words in whatever way they want, I'm sure that will clear things right up, after all this thread is a shinning example of that.

[The Grand Nudger]

How could it be lying for a person who doesn't know whether gods exist to tell people that they don't know whether gods exist, lol?

Are you trying to insist that they do know..or..what...

[Belacqua]

Wow you just aren't going to get this, sure lets everybody just use whatever words in whatever way they want, I'm sure that will clear things right up, after all this thread is a shinning example of that.

I think I get what you're saying. 

Natural language just isn't precise, and we have to say things like "I mean 'agnostic' in the sense of _____." 

As Prof. Lunaphiles says, tidying up definitions will help people understand each other. I think you agree with him on that.

[Mr.wizard]

Wow you just aren't going to get this, sure lets everybody just use whatever words in whatever way they want, I'm sure that will clear things right up, after all this thread is a shinning example of that.

I think I get what you're saying. 

Natural language just isn't precise, and we have to say things like "I mean 'agnostic' in the sense of _____." 

As Prof. Lunaphiles says, tidying up definitions will help people understand each other. I think you agree with him on that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current definitions, the only two people amongst this entire site of atheists who seem to have a problem with the definitions are the two of you. The current definitions are simple short and accepted by almost every atheist I have ever talked to. The definitions are not even the important part of the god discussion, it's the concepts that are important.

[Mr Greene]

Generally the people who use the term 'agnostic' are atheists who are unsure of the reaction of theists and trying to sound less confrontational.

Oh, god damn it, now - the atheists are lying about it, or are they being truthful, because they are agnostic atheists - which is it???

Theists can be aggressive in their attempts to 'convert' others. Not everyone wants to go through that argument on a regular basis.
AFAIK the bulk of members here are 6.

[Belacqua]

I think I get what you're saying. 

Natural language just isn't precise, and we have to say things like "I mean 'agnostic' in the sense of _____." 

As Prof. Lunaphiles says, tidying up definitions will help people understand each other. I think you agree with him on that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current definitions, the only two people amongst this entire site of atheists who seem to have a problem with the definitions are the two of you. The current definitions are simple short and accepted by almost every atheist I have ever talked to. The definitions are not even the important part of the god discussion, it's the concepts that are important.

I don't think the current definitions are a problem either. There are at least two, and we have to figure out which one a person is using when we read his statement. David Mitchell uses it one way, you use it another. No problem.

---

"atheism," is inaccurately defined as simply lack of belief.

I agree with you that atheism defined as lack and only lack is not a good position. I don't think it's possible in an adult human with a functioning brain. 

To insist on this definition, it seems to me, is to deny what is really going on.

People have a web of beliefs (=things they hold to be true). This web of beliefs may well exclude the belief that God exists. For thinking people, however, the exclusion is made possible by the other beliefs that they hold. It is a lack, but a lack that is maintained by believing other things. 

So for example, someone hears the claim that God made the world in six days. This is easy to dismiss, because we have many other beliefs about the history of the earth that are better attested. We lack the belief that God made the world in six days, because we have better beliefs. 

We reject the claims of religious people because we have other beliefs that we hold to. These are likely to include beliefs like, "revelation is not a good source of information," or "science works and science is incompatible with God." Things like that. 

I am not talking about the history of how a person becomes an atheist. This is not a temporal process, but a simultaneous web in which we hold our beliefs. The commitment that science is better than revelation maintains the belief that we can reject the claims of religious people.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current definitions, the only two people amongst this entire site of atheists who seem to have a problem with the definitions are the two of you. The current definitions are simple short and accepted by almost every atheist I have ever talked to. The definitions are not even the important part of the god discussion, it's the concepts that are important.

I don't think the current definitions are a problem either. There are at least two, and we have to figure out which one a person is using when we read his statement. David Mitchell uses it one way, you use it another. No problem.

No he doesn't, he uses agnosticism as someone who doesn't know if a god exists, he uses agnosticism correctly. What he gets wrong is atheism because he paints atheism as knowing there are no gods, so he is arguing that agnosticism is more rational than atheism, because atheism claims to know and agnosticism doesn't. Atheism makes no positive claims.