Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

... Just as in that case, this thread requires that one accept this joker's definitions, and, of course, he intends that all the defintions ultimately define himself as right, and anyone who dissents as wrong.

You're just indulging your now familiar exercise of defining terms to suit your thesis--you're begging the question once again.

You don't understand what i "meant" to say. I said what i meant to say. You've begged the question from the outset, and done it by insisting on definitions you can twist to support your thesis.

Thomas Huxley, who coined the word agnostic in 1869, wrote:

Quote:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

By Huxley's definition of the word which he invented, atheists and theists both can be agnostics, to the extent that they claim to be able or unable to demonstrate the proposition of the existence of god. It is useful to consider that Huxley did not coin the term with reference soley to the narrow and controversial proposition that there is or isn't a god.

I clearly stated at the beginning and elsewhere that the subject was just about belief in the existence of ‘God’. I’d say Huxley seems to state clearly why it is more illogical to be an atheist than an agnostic when the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proved.

The etymology of the word is not the philosophical meaning. If you want to be an atheist you must use it to refute theism which is a belief in God. You must therefore refute the belief in God to be an atheist you haven’t which means your belief that you are an atheist is false and illogical (given the normal philosophical definitions of atheism, theism and agnosticism all of which are standard philosophical terms).

Good . . . i never liked that little bitch Tinkerbell.

As this joker here has acknowledged that he is agnostic with regard to fairies, pixies and elves, i have a thought exercise for him. If he came home to discover that some of his cash were missing, and a child of his acquaintance were there, who told him the cash had been taken by pixies--he would not be in a position to punish the child, as he would not be able to refute the claim based on the non-existence of pixies, no?

igm wrote:

I clearly stated at the beginning and elsewhere that the subject was just about belief in the existence of ‘God’. I’d say Huxley seems to state clearly why it is more illogical to be an atheist than an agnostic when the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proved.

Now all we need is someone to go on about flying tea pots.

You are an incredibly naive and facile individual and this is one of the most simple-minded heaps of horse **** i've seen at this site.

It was a waste of your education that no one taught you the difference between waist and waste. I've provided several definions from reliable, external sources to support my position. You've provided none. You lose.

God you're thick...

One thing atheists say is that it’s not logical to believe in God. Since it’s more logical to say that it’s impossible to know whether there is a God or not should atheists be agnostics (logically speaking)?

It’s more logical to be an agnostic because it takes into account that it’s impossible to know for certain that there isn’t a God and that is the definition of what it is to be an agnostic when it comes to believing in God? Does that make atheists less logical than agnostics?

Also I don't think it's more logical to say 'I'm 99% atheist and 1% agnostic than saying 'I'm an agnostic.

. . . he said, backpeddling furiously . . .