:yawn:

Stop with all the labels and descriptors, because all that ever happens when labels/descriptors are used are endless argument about what the label or descriptor means.

State your position without using a label. Then there is no ambiguity.

Rather than merely saying I am an Agnostic, I say, "Here is my position...which obviously is AN agnostic position":

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...

...so I don't.

Stop with the, "I am an atheist" or "I am an antitheist." State your actual position...and, if you feel like it, mention you consider it to be AN "atheistic" or "antitheistic" position. Mine will not be the ONLY agnostic position...and I seriously doubt yours will be the ONLY atheistic or AN antitheistic position either.

But if you state your position thoroughly, we at least know where you stand.

Lol, being wrong that many times in a row would make me sleepy too.

Stop with the, "I am an atheist" or "I am an antitheist." State your actual position...

But if you state your position thoroughly, we at least know where you stand. — Frank Apisa

I claim (1) that divine predicates of

• Ultimate Mystery,
• All-Creator (of existence),
• & Providential Intervener (in the universe)

are not true, which entails (2) that any deity (e.g. Abrahamic, Greco-Roman Pantheonic, Hindu Vedic, etc) defined by these 'untrue divine predicates' are fictions.

Some have faith - suspend Disbelief, or 'make believe' - in g/G-fictions and some do not; in other words, some are 'godly' (i.e. Believers) and some are 'godless' (i.e. Disbelievers).

NB: These claims presuppose that 'divine predicates' can be falsified, or that their truth-values can be determined, and thereby known; therefore, asserting that 'g/G with these predicates' are "unknown" or "unknowable" is as unwarranted as asserting that 'g/G without any definite predicates' is "unknown" is incoherent (i.e. babytalk). 

:roll: And some say they neither Believe nor Disbelieve; that's all well and good, as it is indistinguishable from, in effect, (passively) Disbelieving in practice - everyday 'godless' living.

:scream: :mask: :point:


re: "theism" "atheism" "non-theism" "anti-theism" & (theistic) "agnosticism"

Wait, hold up, I thought agnosticism was the absence of belief...? Somehow this keeps getting brought up, like a weed in your yard.

How I understood it was that if I am agnostic, then I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god. I simply lack a belief one way or the other. And If I am atheist, then I lack a belief in the existence of god because of my belief that god does not exist.

Atheists and theists have convictions. Agnostics don't. At least that's how I understood it. And plenty of academic philosophers of religion have pressed this point: atheism is a belief that has reasons that must be justified and can be scrutinized, and it should not be taken to be the "default" position. The default is agnosticism, no-conviction, no-belief.

My position is my position (as requested by Frank A.) Either it's rationally warranted or it's not. Show rationally that it's not; don't just tell me it's not.

I was not responding directly to you, but I can see why it would seem like that since my comment came right after yours. I saw a few comments already that seemed to defend the notion of atheism as an absence of theistic belief, yourself included but also and .

@darthbarracuda Perhaps this helps...

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040

I appreciate the link, but I don't see what we gain by making these divisions between claims of knowledge and belief.

As I see it, behind all of this confusing machinery lurks a different debate: naturalism. If someone is a naturalist, then it might make sense to say that atheism is a lack of belief. For a naturalist, everything is natural (unless shown otherwise). If there is no evidence for god, then god is taken to be unreal: not without argument, but because the argument just is the naturalist point of view. If we do not have any reason to think that god exists, but we do have reasons to think that everything real is natural, then we have reasons to think that god does not exist.

But we can step back and ask, is naturalism true?, in which case this "agnostic atheism" is found to be exactly what it was from the start: atheism. One lacks of a belief in god because they do not think such a being is compatible with a naturalistic universe (i.e. they don't believe god is possible, they don't believe god exists).

I do not see how the supposed dichotomy between knowledge and belief is helpful. To be frank, nobody really cares whether you think (i.e. believe) you know if god does/does not exist. All anyone should care about are the reasons for why you believe what you do. Perhaps this is related to the increasing need for people to apply labels to themselves as "identities", to differentiate themselves from others (to be individual/unique/special), while simultaneously belonging (to a clan/tribe/family); but that's just speculation on my part.

There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not. Do you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but a theist. Do you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but an atheist. — that link you posted

Does anyone know "for sure" if they will wake up tomorrow? Does anyone really care about "how sure" you are in your beliefs? To be clear: this is not about knowledge per se, it's about what someone believes about their knowledge, which is not relevant. I wanna know why you believe what you do, not how confident you are in your beliefs.

Ok.

Yes. The following is fairly salient.

"No matter what their reasons or how they approach the question, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different, but also non-exclusive. Many people who adopt the label of agnostic simultaneously reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them."



Out of context quote. That's just one example of atheism.

"An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods.

The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists. Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist. All that is required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others."

>>@Frank Apisa

Out of context quote. That's just one example of atheism.

"An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods.

The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists. Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist. All that is required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others." — Baden

I have mentioned something on several occasions here in the forum...that I have mentioned in many other forums (fora) where I have participated...to which I have never have gotten a reasonable refutation. Let me try it with you directly...as it applies to you:

First the comment: Atheists claim that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods. I say an atheist is simply someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor. (Ultimately, that is what it is: Someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor.)

And I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NEVER!

So I am saying that "believing" there are no gods or "believing" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...IS AN ESSENTIAL to using "atheist" as a descriptor.

I ask you, Baden (IF YOU USE "ATHEIST" AS A DESCRIPTOR)...do you either "believe" there are no gods...or do you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

I'd like to discuss the implications of your answer if you answer NO to that last part.

ANYONE else who identifies as an "atheist"...I ask you that same question.

Who you do or don't know and what they think is irrelevant as is which kind of atheist I am.

Atheists claim that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods — Frank Apisa

I'll write it for you again:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods."

Are we there yet?

Baden
9.8k
Atheists claim that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods
— Frank Apisa

I'll write it for you again:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods."

Are we there yet? — Baden

Nope. Not even close.

You still haven't answered the questions. NO ATHEIST ever does...because the answer is apparent. EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

ATHEISM...is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM.

There is nothing wrong with "belief", Baden. But atheists want to pretend they do not do it. And to maintain that pretense, they have to insist that agnostics and new-born babies and infants and toddlers are all atheists...because they lack a "belief" in any gods.

It is an absurdity. You are an intelligent guy, Baden. You realize what I am saying makes sense...much more sense than "Atheism is only a lack of 'belief' in a god." Why do you not just acknowledge that?

You are an intelligent guy, Baden. You realize what I am saying makes sense...much more sense than "Atheism is only a lack of 'belief' in a god." Why do you not just acknowledge that? — Frank Apisa

I'll write it for you again:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods." — Baden

In practice, for obvious reasons, people who call themselves atheists are generally aware of at least some gods and other religious concepts And therefore do have beliefs about them. But none of that is necessary to be an atheist. Intelligent extraterrestrials who had never visited this planet nor heard of our gods and had none of their own could accurately be described as atheists.

ATHEISM is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM.

Theists "believe" there is a God...or "believe" it is more likely there is a God than that there are no gods.

Atheists "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

Following that logic, agnosticism is the belief that there's not enough evidence to justify a belief in gods or a disbelief in them. Agnostics are at least as likely to be aware of gods as atheists are, so their orientation towards them is also based on beliefs about the probability of their existence.

In fact, to be agnostic requires some beliefs concerning the probable existence of gods. Atheism doesn't.

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Making it in a sense more ideologically loaded than atheism. Though neither is necessarily ideological.

[Quoted you from the other thread as it's more relevant here. Though still not very on-topic re anti-theism, so I might leave it soon.]

In practice, for obvious reasons, people who call themselves atheists are generally aware of at least some gods and other religious concepts And therefore do have beliefs about them. But none of that is necessary to be an atheist. Intelligent extraterrestrials who had never visited this planet nor heard of our gods and had none of their own could accurately be described as atheists. — Baden

As I said (and which you dodged)...

...a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...is an essential to cause anyone to use "atheist" as a descriptor.

Handle THAT, Baden...and we can talk.

Following that logic, agnosticism is the belief that there's not enough evidence to justify a belief in gods or a disbelief in them. Agnostics are at least as likely to be aware of gods as atheists are, so their orientation towards them is also based on beliefs about the probability of their existence. — Baden

I cannot speak for every Agnostic, but for me...that is not so at all.

There are people who "believe" there is a GOD...at least one god. i am not one of them. I do not "believe" there is at least one god.

There also are people who "believe" there are no gods. I am not one of them. I do not "believe" there are no gods.

There also are people who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one....and others who "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE EITHER. I do NOT "believe" it is more likely in either direction.

Here is the way I say that (which I have posted many times:

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...

...so I don't.

So your "logic" does not hold.

Quoted you from the other thread as it's more relevant here. Though still not very on-topic re anti-theism, so I might leave it soon. — Baden

I cannot force you to stay, but I can ask as respectfully as possible that you do, Baden. Nothing being discussed between the two of us here...is so off-topic as to be proscribed in any way.

This is important stuff we are hashing.

As I said (and which you dodged)...
...a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...is an essential to cause anyone to use "atheist" as a descriptor. — Frank Apisa

I didn't dodge it. It's a false claim considering the definition of atheism is (for the very last time since I've said the same thing in different ways about five time already):

"Atheism for Beginners

Atheism is the Absence of Belief in Gods: The broad, simple definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; atheism is not the absence of beliefs generally. Normally called "weak atheism," this definition is attested to in most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries, and specialized references. Disbelief in gods is not the not the same as a belief or as the denial of gods. The lack of a belief isn't the same as having a belief and not believing something is true isn't the same as believing it is not true.
...
Atheists use this broad definition not simply because it's what we find in dictionaries, but because the broad definition is superior. The broad definition helps describe a broader range of possible positions among both atheists and theists. "

That's what the word means; it subsumes your definition and that's the way I'll continue to use it, your ideologically based aversion notwithstanding.

I didn't dodge it. It's a false claim considering the definition of atheism is (for the very last time since I've said the same thing in different ways about five time already):

"Atheism for Beginners

Atheism is the Absence of Belief in Gods: The broad, simple definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; atheism is not the absence of beliefs generally. Normally called "weak atheism," this definition is attested to in most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries, and specialized references. Disbelief in gods is not the not the same as a belief or as the denial of gods. The lack of a belief isn't the same as having a belief and not believing something is true isn't the same as believing it is not true.
...
Atheists use this broad definition not simply because it's what we find in dictionaries, but because the broad definition is superior. The broad definition helps describe a broader range of possible positions among both atheists and theists. "

That's what the word means and that's the way I'll continue to use it, your ideologically based aversion notwithstanding. — Baden

One...you did dodge it...and continue to do so.

Two...okay, we'll leave. The next time I bring it up with someone else, I will be able to make the same statement...no person using "atheist" as a descriptor will respond to the question.

I say an atheist is simply someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor. — Frank Apisa

So you say ... :roll:

And I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NEVER!

Wrong. :lol:

So I am saying that "believing" there are no gods or "believing" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...IS AN ESSENTIAL to using "atheist" as a descriptor.

Non sequitur. :shade:

EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

Inductive fallacy (i.e. hasty generalization). Proof:

... I don't. :scream:

ATHEISM...is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM.

Confusion of 2nd order meta-statement (re: concept of divinity - theism) with 1st order object-statement (re: deity - theistic g/G) compounded by incoherent conflation of 'belief THAT' & 'belief IN' epistemic stances.

:mask:

From my very first reply to you months ago, Frankie, I pointed out that it didn't matter what you or I call ourselves, only what our respective positions presuppose and entail. Your position - Luther-like auto-da-fé, or tantrum-like CRIS DE CŒUR :cry: - consists of fallacies such as argument from popularity (re: alleged "descriptors usage"), argument from ignorance (re: "guesses" that ignore evidentiary claims), & hasty generalizations (or ad hominem projections?) as well as incoherently insisting that you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED', conflating belief IN belief THAT & know THAT, & confusing 2nd order meta-statements with 1st order object-statements. :monkey: You were wrong then, Frankie, with the OP "About This Word, "Atheist" and you're still wrong, incorrigibly moreso, today as my plainly stated position (above) shows and most (@Baden, @DingoJones et al) who've engaged you on several threads can attest.

:death: :flower:

What 180 said. :100:

180 Proof
991
I say an atheist is simply someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor.
— Frank Apisa
So you say ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Yup, so I say.

And I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NEVER!
Wrong. :lol: — 180 Proof

No it is not wrong. I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Have you?

Inductive fallacy (i.e. hasty generalization). Proof:

... I don't. :scream: — 180 Proof

Okay...let's talk about that.

You are saying you "do not believe there are no gods"...and you are saying "the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist...yet you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.

Mention that to someone in the street...and they will laugh at you, because it is absurd.

ATHEISM...is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM. — 180 proof

Correct.

From my very first reply to you months ago, Frankie, I pointed out that it didn't matter what you or I call ourselves, only what our respective positions presuppose and entail. Your position - assertions without argument (i.e. Luther-like auto-da-fé, or tantrum-like CRIS DE CŒUR :cry:) - consists of fallacies such as argument from popularity (re: use of "descriptors"), argument from ignorance (re: "guesses" that ignore evidentiary claims), & hasty generalizations (or ad hominem projections?) as well as incoherently insisting that you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED', conflating belief IN belief THAT & know THAT, & confusing 2nd order meta-statements with 1st order object-statements. :monkey: You were wrong then, Frankie, with the OP "About This Word, "Atheist" and you're still wrong, incorrigibly moreso, today as my plainly stated position (above) shows and most (@Baden, DingoJones et al) who've engaged you on several threads can attest. — 180 Proof

Right!

From a guy who claims he uses the word "atheist" to describe himself...but who does not "believe" there are no gods...and who says "the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist."

I must be terribly frustrating having to defend that...but I admire you attempting to do so.

Baden
9.8k
What 180 said. :100: — Baden

So you also are saying that you use "atheist" as a descriptor, but you do NOT "believe" there are no gods...and you think that the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist.

Wow!

Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.

:wink:

Wow!

Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.

:wink: — Frank Apisa

Lucky for you, Frankie, a pandemic's come along to quarantine "two" philosophically literate, thinking persons who happen to be bored enough to shed a little lumen naturale into your long unenlightened life. :razz:

180 Proof
992
Wow!

Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.

:wink:
— Frank Apisa
Lucky for you, Frankie, a pandemic's quarantined "two" philosophically literate, thinking persons who happen to be bored enough to shed a little lumen naturale into your long unenlightened life. :razz: — 180 Proof

Okay, Mr. Atheist...who does NOT "believe" there are no gods...and who thinks that the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist.

Thank you for shedding "a little lumen naturale" upon someone as unenlightened as I. You are very generous. And in return, please accept $100,000,000 in gratitude.

Yes yes, :100: , but that doesnt matter to Frank Apisa, and even if it did he lacks the comprehension to accept he is wrong on this. He is a fanatically religious believer...of agnosticism. A very confused person, with an incoherent position that he doesnt even know he holds.
I suspect mental illness of some kind, like Autism and Dunning-Kruager had a baby and it was raised by a lady named Aggressively Stupid. Also the baby spent its summers with Uncle Parrot, who taught the baby to repeat the same thing over and over without listening to the responses. The end result is Frank Apisa,
So basically a complete waste of time to engage with.

:rofl: :rofl: