You're just jealous because you can't write prose. All you can do is bold every other word and punctuate with emojis.

:snicker:

Busted! :yikes: :rofl:

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa

I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
That Describes two kinds of atheists, two examples of people who lack a belief in god (one because they feel like they have some reason to believe no god exists, the other who lacks belief in god because they find that the more likely). It doesnt cover the ground it needs to in order to be definitive.
Your definition is the worse of the two, it confuses category and sub category. An analogy would be “berries”....you are defining “berry” as strawberrys and blue berries. Atheism is like “berry”, the guy that believes there are no gods is the “strawberry” and the guy thinking it more likely that there is no god the “blueberry”. An Agnostic could be a “raspberry”, just another berry (another type of person who lacks belief in god).
Aside from your aversion to the label, what makes your definition the better one? You havent demonstrated it at all.

So the agnostic that can't stand atheists was just told to look at the big picture that says "everyone who is not a theist is only that way because their life has been so easy they did not have to 'turn' to religion".

I got a nickel on no complaint from the agnostic. But heaven forbid we say, "the way we identify ourselves as atheists would mean that we see agnostics as part of the same club". Why are they so offended?

This is why some atheists assume agnostics are really just theists searching for the right god.

Your definition is the worse of the two, it confuses category and sub category. — DingoJones

The confused are the last to recognize they're confused though ...

An analogy would be “berries”....you are defining “berry” as strawberrys and blue berries. Atheism is like “berry”, the guy that believes there are no gods is the “strawberry” and the guy thinking it more likely that there is no god the “blueberry”. An Agnostic could be a “raspberry”, just another berry (another type of person who lacks belief in god).

:up:

(For the sake of this discussion, DJ, your analogy works for me. Maybe go a tad slower though so "The Weak Atheist" can catch up.)

I agree with enough of what you say to simply say, "I agree."

But, as the scorpion and the frog, I am slave to my

You wrote, "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

I suggest that educated people are more likely to be agnostics...and the kind of agnostics that I am attempting to differentiate from people who want to use the descriptor "atheist."

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic.

Granted, many choose "atheist."

As an old boss of mine used to say (over and over and over), "Six of one...a dozen of another." Not sure what he was, but he sure as hell was not very educated.

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole. — Frank Apisa

And when we heard your agnostic position, we said, "wow, that sounds just like what I believe. Oh, you call yourself 'agnostic', I call myself 'atheist'. When I look around, most people with our beliefs call themselves 'atheist', so why do you stick with 'agnostic'?

While discussions can get heated, I don't understand what is offensive or angering about that question?

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic. — Frank Apisa

When you say "agnostic" do you mean the view that we don't know now, but we might someday? Or do you mean that this knowledge is forever beyond us?

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa

↪Frank Apisa

I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — DingoJones

You have a point there...and I screwed up in what I wrote. I normally write, "A person who uses 'atheist' as a descriptor is almost always a person who 'believes' there are no gods...or who 'believes' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

I screwed up there. (There are examples of me using the proper wording in this thread and in others.)

In any case, I contend that most, PERHAPS ALL, people who CHOOSE to use the descriptor "atheist" do, in fact, either "believe" there are no gods or "believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I apologize for the careless wording, but let's deal with that for right now.

Do you disagree with me on that?[/quote]

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.
— Frank Apisa

And when we heard your agnostic position, we said, "wow, that sounds just like what I believe. Oh, you call yourself 'agnostic', I call myself 'atheist'. When I look around, most people with our beliefs call themselves 'atheist', so why do you stick with 'agnostic'?

While discussions can get heated, I don't understand what is offensive or angering about that question? — ZhouBoTong

So...you are saying that most people who...

1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist

2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist

3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction

and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...

....most of them...

...call themselves atheists rather than agnostics?

I'm not sure if you are just kidding here?

People like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, for instance, got more worked up than I on this issue...pointedly rejected any suggestion that they be identified as atheists...rather than agnostics.

Their positions were the positions best described as agnostic...NOT atheistic.

So is my position.

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic.
— Frank Apisa

When you say "agnostic" do you mean the view that we don't know now, but we might someday? Or do you mean that this knowledge is forever beyond us? — frank

There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable.

It is unknown at this time...may be knowable at some future time.

But I would not hold my breath.

My guess would be...it will never be known.

BUT THAT IS PURELY A BLIND GUESS.

There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable. — Frank Apisa

It can be argued that it's unknowable. That's what some people mean by "agnostic." If the speaker doesn't make it clear, you have to ask.

There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable.
— Frank Apisa

It can be argued that it's unknowable. That's what some people mean by "agnostic." If the speaker doesn't make it clear, you have to ask. — frank

Anything can be argued, Frank.

Right now it is unknown.

Whether it will be knowable or not in the future...is pure speculation.

If there is a GOD...then for certain it CAN BE known in the future. If there is a GOD...AND THE god is a personal GOD and wants to be KNOWN...it could make itself known.

(Gotta wonder, if it does exist, why it hasn't)

Anything can be argued, Frank. — Frank Apisa

No, look up "agnostic." One of the meanings is the view that the existence of divinity is unknowable.

There's an agnostic in the corner gnashing her teeth because you keep misusing her word.

1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist

2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist

3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction

and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION... — Frank Apisa

Yes to all. Unless they profess a belief that a god does exist??

Many atheists consider the question of god itself to be nonsense. So yes, they don't make a guess in either direction.

Anything can be argued, Frank.
— Frank Apisa

No, look up "agnostic." One of the meanings is the view that the existence of divinity is unknowable.

There's an agnostic in the corner gnashing her teeth because you keep misusing her word.
15 minutes ago — frank

ANYTHING can be argued.

And while I agree that the existence of any divinities is unknowable at the moment...how can anyone see into the future to KNOW that it will not be knowable at some future point?

Most dictionaries "define" agnostic with variation on "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable." "Probably" being the important word.

1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist

2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist

3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction

and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...
— Frank Apisa

Yes to all. Unless they profess a belief that a god does exist??

Many atheists consider the question of god itself to be nonsense. So yes, they don't make a guess in either direction. — ZhouBoTong

I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic.

Haha... everyone is an agnostic. "We don't know if god or gods exist." Anyone who claims they KNOW there is no go or gods, and anyone who claims they KNOW that there are gods are liars, or else under an illusion.

So if everyone does not know whether there is a god, then it's a matter of belief.

You can belief there is a god. You can believe there is no god. But you can't believe both at the same time, and you can't believe the negation of either at the same time.

To claim someone is an agnostic, is fine. But to mean NON-commitment with this claim whether they believe or not in a god, is ludicrous. By the law of the excluded middle.

Does the definition of "irony" have a "probably" in it?

Your response has no counter-points, and still no demonstration that your way of defining atheism is better. All you did was try and ad hoc your own definition.
I stated a position, then offered reasoning/defense of that position, then offered reasoning as to why your position is wrong. You have not addressed any of it. Instead you are making a largely irrelevant update on your definition and using that to attempt a pivot, a shifting of the discussion, a dodge. These are the weeds I mentioned, lets try and stat out of them.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

You must have some concept of "god" in mind in order to make these statements. What are you referring to?

This question pertains to my position, wherein I think it highly unlikely that a "god of religion" exists. That's fairly specific - it implies an intelligent creator who cares about humans, has interacted with some humans, and provided a life after death. It seems to me the evidence for such a being is quite weak, and therefore there's no good reasons to believe in such a thing. On the other hand, I'm a bit more open to the possibility of a being possessing intentionality and efficacy, that was capable of choosing to make a world of the sort that exists. However, since this being is probably not a god-of-religion, its existence is irrelevant.

There must be some kind of way outta of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much CONFUSION
I can't get no relief — Bob / Jimi

@DingoJones @ZhouBoTong @god must be atheist @Relativist @jorndoe et al ... point out where my descriptions sans labels (or are they mere definitions?) go wrong.

=====

0. definition: No knowledge (contingently or necessarily)* that g/G or not g/G.

- - - - -

Caveat:

(A) IF g/G is underdetermined (e.g. ultimately mysterious), THEN neither 'knowing' nor 'not knowing' g/G obtains, or makes sense; therefore, (0) is incoherent, and redundant with respect to (1, 2, 3) below.

However, (B) IF g/G is not underdetermined (i.e. sufficiently, or intelligibly, predicated), THEN the predicates attributed to g/G (each Token? ... Type?) entail evidence that can be known (i.e. tested via observation or experiment) directly or indirectly; therefore (0) is self-inconsistent, or nonsense.

- - - - -

1. g/G-ism: No knowledge* that g/G or not g/G, And Yet belief in (& that?) g/G-Token.

2. weak no-g/G-ism: No knowledge* that g/G or not g/G, Therefore no belief that g/G-Token.

3. strong no-g/G-ism: No knowledge* that g/G or not g/G, but (a preponderance of) circumstantial evidence inconsistent with - contrary to - g/G, Therefore disbelief that g/G-Token.

4. no-g/G-Type-ism: sine qua non predicates (i.e. their entailments) ascribed to a g/G-Type are falsified (re: caveat B above, applied to Type instead), Therefore every g/G-Token of that g/G-Type is fictional (i.e. an empty name).

(NB: #4 is my position.)

=====

So is the OP's confusion - for charity's sake, ignore his tediously repetitive argumentum ad populum - contagious?

Have I / we caught it too?

Or is the OP really not confused after all?

Why would I do that? Were we having a disagreement over something? If so, lets start with that instead of whatever this is...

Not you and I. Most of us and Frank A. With his confusion. (Or mine / ours.)

1. "god" is not defined
2. How are you defining "knowledge"? The strict philosophical definintion is justifed belief that is true and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing, given the way you distinguish between belief and knowing.

↪180 Proof
1. "god" is not defined — Relativist

That's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds.

2. How are you defining "knowledge"?

Loosely, for the sake of discussion, Popper's / Feyerabend's / Taleb's critical rationalism for hypothetical-deductive conjectures (i.e. explanations, predictions - re: causal algorithms (models)) and Susan Haack's fallibilistic foundherentism for beliefs, or beliefs-formation, (i.e. descriptions, expectations - re: correlational heuristics (data)).

That's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds. — 180 Proof

A Mormon could believe the Catholic god doesn't exist, but believe the Mormon god exists. These respective gods have some characteristics in common, but their differences make them unique
.

Loosely, for the sake of discussion, — 180 Proof

Please just state how you're defining it instead of referencing something else. My biggest issue is that generally, knowledge of x entails belief that x, but you are treating belief and knowledge as two different things.

0. definition: No knowledge (contingently or necessarily)* that g/G or not g/G. — 180 Proof

(pointing out problems with definition)

The claim is false, because this is necessarily true knowledge.
This is certain knowledge that God or Not God. Either God or else Not god must be true; they both can't be false at the same time; therefore the OR connector renders the expression always true.

I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic. — Frank Apisa

Ok, but then I get to bet that every person you ask will assume they are of above average intelligence (everyone assumes they are of above average intelligence). So what?

Part of my argument is that for some reason, agnostics side with theists, even though their view is a lot closer to that of an atheist (I still can't see a difference other than the labels they give themselves). When most Christians in America hear "agnostic" they hear "searching for god" (earlier in my philosophical journey...this is actually the reason I stopped calling myself agnostic...later I learned definitions). So of course they will side with agnostics against the atheist....they think the agnostics are one of their people...oh, and they think atheists are Satan's spawn.

So is the OP's confusion - for charity's sake, ignore his tediously repetitive argumentum ad populum - contagious?

Have I / we caught it too? — 180 Proof

Whooo...I can feel that. I start to feel confusion any time I argue with an agnostic...or libertarians, but we can ignore that one for now. I always have to go back and re-read my posts to try and find their purpose (it is healthy in that I can find where my wording was problematic...but then I try new words and hit the same wall).

I feel that you and I have very different writing styles...so if neither of us are making any headway (and @DingoJones has put in some serious effort as well), I am not sure this will go anywhere. I sometimes get bored of these arguments...but then a week later they suddenly seem very interesting again (even with a lack of progress).

Oh, I get you. You meant to say we don't know WHEATHER g or not g.

I agree with your position 4.

I beleive that the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven. But god has not given any revelation to humans as to its own nature, qualities, and specifications. Therefore any attribution to that is mere fantasy, or else a lie. Heck we don't know anything about him, and nothing of his attributes. Event his attribute of existence is hidden from us.