Which is still atheism. Not mutually exclusive terms.

Traditionally, agnosticism is a positive belief that knowledge about the existence of gods isn't possible, or at least isn't practically attainable for some reason.

Colloquially, agnosticism often is parsed as the "shrugging one's shoulders"/"I dunno" option.

I keep, irrationally, having hope that he'll suddenly start having a worthwhile good faith conversation about this stuff. — Terrapin Station

Meh. @3017amen is arguing in good faith. He may be beginning to realise that his conclusions do not follow from his premises; his argument is no where near as strong as he thought. The resulting dissonance shows in repetition - as - and adjusting his position - .

Which is still atheism. — DingoJones

If you like. That's not how I would use those terms.

What is atheism to you? Does it entail something more than a lack of belief in god or gods?

I'm not a theist — 3017amen

Wha? You're not a theist?

Hahaha ( Christian Existentialist) — 3017amen

But you do believe God exists, right?

Those who have read my views on epistemology will know how keen I am to distinguish belief from truth. While both are predicated to propositions, they are logically quite independent.

So a proposition can be true; or it can be false.

And a proposition can be believed; or it can be disbelieved (using that as the negation of belief).

Placing the statement "god exists" in this framework, we get

1. Banno believes that god exists
2. Banno believes that god does not exist
3. Banno does not believe that god exists
4. Banno does not believe that god does not exist.


1 & 2 are inconsistent, as are 1 & 3 and 2 & 4. But 3 & 4 are consistent.

That's the view I would call agnosticism. Neither accepting nor denying the existence of god.

(Written in a rush; I reserve the right to edit.)

:grin:

Lack of g/G belief isn't an alternative faith commitment to g/G belief any more than being celibate is an alternative sex act to sodomy. — 180 Proof

Very :cool: metaphor!

I understand, but that doesnt answer my question about how you define atheism.

No. This is such a basic and simple thing to understand. Atheism isn't anything like an ideology, a body of theory, a school of thought. It's only a term for one simple thing: the absence of a belief in gods. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it's like being asexual; if you are asexual you have no interest in sex and similarly, if you are atheist you have no interest in gods or deities.

See, I understood something you said! Was that only because I happened to agree with it? :razz:

I hate to do this when you're being friendly (which I'm grateful for--seriously), but I wouldn't say that really understood what I wrote (so even though I was hesitant to point this out, I think it's important because you think the comments are sourced in the mere fact of disagreement).

I wasn't saying that atheism implies no interest in gods or deities. So "If you are atheist you have no interest in gods or deities" isn't necessarily the case, and that's not what I wrote, it's not what I was saying.

Particular atheists might have no interest in gods or deities, but plenty do. The ones who do have an interest have just reached the conclusion that there are no such things as gods, or they at least lack a belief in gods.

He may be beginning to realise that his conclusions do not follow from his premises; his argument is no where near as strong as he thought

Really?

Guys, it's just the opposite!

Know one has come close to elucidating the nature of existing things, for which topics I provided a discussion point.

Tick tock tick tock

I'm ready when ever you all are?

Let me help, any one care to take on 'daydream while driving a car' phenomenon?

You can all just pat yourselves on the back and pretend you understand the basic questions of existence, but it only supports the majority view that Atheism is an untenable position. Again , that's what extreme Fundamentalist's do... LOL

Yes, so does everyone, I think. The fact is that they reach different conclusions thereby because they have different dispositional starting points, different experiences and different capabilities. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a concern you may have with my reasoning. — Isaac

Now there, you've got that right. It's really simple is it not?

I've reached my conclusion (leap of Faith) based on 'existential phenomena'. All you've said is 'God is incoherent' but could not explain why, let alone speak to any existential phenomena...

Make sense?

Lack of g/G belief isn't an alternative faith commitment to g/G belief any more than being celibate is an alternative sex act to sodomy. — 180 Proof

I believe you've got the analogy a$$backwards, no pun intended LOL

Atheism is the opposite of Theism like heterosexual and homosexual is to sexuality.

It was already corrected for you many times, by many different people, that atheism has nothing to do with beliefs about whether there is any "mystery in the world." — Terrapin Station

Are you sure?

If there was no mystery, why do the majority of people believe in God?

Are you sure? — 3017amen

Am I sure that this was already corrected for you many times? Yes.

Atheism has nothing to do with that issue.

I'm skeptical about unconscious mental content. That doesn't imply that I believe that everything is mental and thus conscious mental content. Accidents do not stem from mental content. — Terrapin Station

So, does the atheist's skepticism essentially mean that your theory is true?

Don't take that the wrong way but it sounds like:

Atheist: I don't believe in God because I'm skeptical about how the subconscious mind works [you said you don't think there even is a subconscious mind].

Theist: Really, how does such skepticism produce an alternate truth about conscious existence?

Atheist: It doesn't, I just think God doesn't exist and that's that.

LOL

No. This is such a basic and simple thing to understand. Atheism isn't anything like an ideology, a body of theory, a school of thought. It's only a term for one simple thing: the absence of a belief in gods.

Forgive me again but this is how I see your logic:

Theist: Why do believe in the absence of a God or gods?

Atheist: Because my belief system say's it's incoherent.

Theist: But what does incoherent really mean here?

Atheist: Well, even though I can't explain my own consciousness or conscious existence, It doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Theist: Oh I see, you're just saying it's incoherent because you arbitrarily think so. Gotcha.

LOL

Forgive me again but this is how I see your logic: — 3017amen

We're all over the map here. Re this:

"No. This is such a basic and simple thing to understand. Atheism isn't anything like an ideology, a body of theory, a school of thought. It's only a term for one simple thing: the absence of a belief in gods."

That's not a matter of logic, or an argument for anything. It's reporting a conventional definition to you, because you seem to not understand the conventional definition.

Any belief system requires logic to support one's belief. I use clues from the natural world including my conscious experiences; then chose to make a leap of faith. — 3017amen

The leap of faith, as presented by Kierkegaard, is not about confirming a proposition or reciting the Credo. It concerns taking one's existence as an individual seriously enough to make choices and perceive events through the responsibility it confers upon one.

I suggest that you use an avatar of someone or thing that more closely hews to your view of the world.

It concerns taking one's existence as an individual seriously enough to make choices and perceive events through the responsibility it confers upon one. — Valentinus

Sure , I have no quarrel with that.

The point I'm making is relative to volition. In this context, at some level, one must make a choice.

For example, human's are trapped in a series of life's choices. The belief in God is a choice.

In my case, I choose to believe in God through logical inference from the science's (cognitive and physical). The gap is the leap of Faith.

At the time of Kierkegaard's writings, there wasn't as many discoveries as there are now in physical Science/physics and cognitive Psychology.

Make any sense?

I've reached my conclusion (leap of Faith) based on 'existential phenomena'. All you've said is 'God is incoherent' but could not explain why, let alone speak to any existential phenomena...

Make sense? — 3017amen

No. No sense at all. You've just done some vague hand-waiving along the lines of "I don't know what 'red' is... therefore God" which doesn't even make any sense. I've not even got round to providing reasons why I find the concept incoherent, nor what life experiences have lead me to atheism because so far I've just been trying to get you to understand the very simple fact that believing there are great mysteries in life has absolutely no necessary connection to believing that God is the answer to them. And atheism is about a lack of belief in God, absolutely nothing else.

In my case, I choose to believe in God through logical inference from the science's (cognitive and physical). The gap is the leap of Faith. — 3017amen

I don't know what the inference is that you're making though. It seems like you're simply forwarding the old God of the Gaps argument, which has been pointed out to you by others.

In other words, it seems like you're saying:

(a) Phenomena x occur
(b) I consider phenomena x inexplicable/mysterious
(c) Therefore I'm going to say that "God did it."

All you've said is 'God is incoherent' but could not explain why, — 3017amen

I don't know if this is referring to something other than my comments, but I said that the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent on my view (nonphysical existents are different than god, but on most conventional accounts of god, required for there to be a god). I didn't explain that further than that. But no one asked me to explain it further than that, either. Generally, my policy is to not type too much unless someone is really interested in it--and is able to have what I consider a good faith, "remaining curious" back and forth discussion about it, because otherwise it just seems like I'm wasting my time.

And atheism is about a lack of belief in God, absolutely nothing else. — Isaac

We're talking past one another.

My concern is that you haven't provided what your 'system of belief' consists of...for example what is the nature of your believe system?

I've told you mine.

My concern is that you haven't provided what your 'system of belief' consists of. — 3017amen

Then frame the discussion that way. If you frame it as a discussion about atheism, and you characterize that as being a "system of belief," you're mostly going to get comments correcting you re the conventional definition of atheism, which has nothing to do with a "system of belief."

I wouldn't say that I have a system of belief, but my disposition tends to be somewhere in between logical positivism (it's just not that too strictly--I disagree with their approach on a number of things--it would take a lot to explain my relationship and resemblance to it, but nevertheless, I have similarities to it) and pragmatism. I'm relativist, and with lots of skepticism and a strong dislike of "over(re)acting" or sensationalism as well as absolutist/universalist-sounding claims. That's maybe the best nutshell version I could give without a lot of work.

If I may, I'd like to ask you what your understanding of atheism is?

At the time of Kierkegaard's writings, there wasn't as many discoveries as there are now in physical Science/physics and cognitive Psychology. — 3017amen

Are you suggesting that if SK lived in our time, he would have framed the limits of psychology differently than was done in The Concept of Anxiety?

You will have to point to which text in that or another of his books gives you that expectation. You will find locating those words a difficult task since he wrote so many arguments against your kind of argumentation per se rather than as conclusions or inferences of his arguments for what is the case.

It's certainly possible that had he written that today it might be a different analysis.

However, the existential thing about anxiety is a great topic that I agree with... . "Kierkegaard mentions that anxiety is a way for humanity to be saved as well. Anxiety informs us of our choices, our self-awareness and personal responsibility, and brings us from a state of un-self-conscious immediacy to self-conscious reflection."

So in that context, I think we agree.