@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote: Quote: If they dont know a God then they are agnostic.
Incorrect. They are agnostic if the believe the amount of information on given claim (in this case a god) is indeterminate. If after the theistic case is made, a person doesn't know, then they are agnostic. Not knowing is a form of being unconvinced.
Not knowing is a form of not knowing. Which means they do not know God.
Knowing and knowledge are not the same thing. I addressed this already.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:Atheism is not a belief in unbelief. This is a critical error in your understanding.
I recognise a religious belief when I see one.
I think rather you recognize the weakness in religious beliefs and are desperate to put atheists in the same weak state.
Ionus wrote:
The dislike of anyone different, the contempt for the opposing side, the strong arguments that they are right and others are wrong, the emotional level of sneering....atheists have a belief.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in unbelief. Being unconvinced by poor arguments in the existence of god is not a religion.
Ionus wrote:
They believe God does not exist and religious people are fools. Many have said as much on this thread.
So the only way atheists can criticize others conclusions is to make atheism into a religion? If I felt a person made foolish conclusions on weak evidence, I'm not allowed to scrutinize how they came to their conclusion? I'm not allowed to evaluate their standards of evaluation?
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect on this.
Ionus wrote:
If you dont know of the existence of the Empire State building but someone has told you it exists, then you dont know it exists. If you do not know in your soul that God exists then you are agnostic.
If the Empire State building claim is made, I can ask the person to support their claim. Another person who may have a different claim about the ESB may come along. I can ask them to make their case as well. The important thing here is that at no point can I assume an agnostic stance on the height or location of the empire state building. The exact knowledge on this matter exists, and so all claims regarding the ESB can be given a clear agree or disagree.
If you don't know that god exists, then the case for god existance has failed to convince you. That's atheism. Agnosticism is saying there is not enough information. In fact the agnostic stance may be a large contributor to the individual's atheistic conclusion.
I.e. - There isn't enough information to evaluate a belief in God, so until then I don't believe God exist.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:We need a term for a person whose belief is in the unbelief in God?
No, we need a term for someone who is convinced there can not be a God.
And who is that? I don't know a single atheist that can't come up with criteria that if satisfied would convince them in the existence of a god. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, et al all have these standards as well. Who exactly is this mythological atheist that CANNOT be convinced?
Ionus wrote:
Quote:The creation of a special class of atheist for the purposes of making atheism into a faith based position is unnecessary.
Anyone of rewasonable (sic) intelligence can see the emotion and faith it takes to be atheist.
As I said before, you're desperately trying to make atheism into a religion. Atheism is based on skepticism.
Ionus wrote:
I think we have a switch and it is either turned to Yes God or No God. The same mechanism in our minds is used one way or the other. Atheist or Theist.
Sure. We also have a switch for unicorns. We have a switch for Duckbill Platapi as well. The switch is off for gods and unicorns, but it is on for the duckbill. In a state of agnosticism, the switch still remains in the off position. Agnosticism is not a middle point.
Ionus wrote:
Agnostics cant have faith in God but they cant prove God doesnt exist either.
Nobody has a burden to disprove god.
A
R
T