Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have, on dozens of occasions, called attention to the fact that the etymology of the English word "atheist" derives from the Greek through the French...and originally was used to describe someone who was "without a god."

ONE CANNOT BE WITHOUT A GOD IF THERE IS A GOD.

So, in effect, it was an indication of someone who denied the existence of any deities.

I was not "defining" the word...I was merely pointing out its etymology.

When you conclude that "in effect, it was an indication of someone who denied the existence of any deities, you are defining the word, especially in light of the fact that you restrict the definitions of the word by saying, "the word 'atheist' SHOULD NOT MEAN without a 'belief' in any gods."

Frank Apisa wrote:

I then pointed out that some modern day atheists have managed to usurp the word to mean ANYONE who lacks a "belief" in any gods. Most amateur atheists will actually say, "A theist is someone who 'believes' in a god...so prefixing "theist" with a "a" (meaning without or sans) makes the word mean without a "belief" in a god.

That is bullshit. The word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years BEFORE the word "theist"...so it could not have derived that way.

And up until the mid 1950's almost all English speakers used the word to denote someone who denied the existence of gods.

As I've pointed out, this etymology of yours is incorrect. The definition of the word "atheist" involved the disbelief in gods from its very origins in Classica times. You're basing your argument on erroneous suppositions and incorrect derivations of the word.

Frank Apisa wrote:

BOTTOM LINE...an atheist is someone who designates him/herself to be an atheist. It is a self-applied descriptor...which obviously means all sorts of things to various atheists, because there are a dozen qualifiers used by various self-proclaimed atheists. We see STRONG atheists; WEAK atheists; NEGATIVE atheists; POSITIVE atheists; IMPLICIT atheists; EXPLICIT atheists; agnostic atheists; and the songs play on.

You've contradicted your previous assertion with this statement, which is more correct in regard to the use of the word "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

All the babies of the world...all the toddlers of the world...all the unfortunates who are intellectually incapable of forming a "belief"...

By the way you describe your views about belief, that would include you.

Fran Apisa wrote:

...none of them should, by dint of this absurd definition, be considered atheists.

As one of them, when you say, "I do not believe gods exist," you are an atheist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But...the definition in many (NOT ALL) dictionaries and encyclopedia does seem to demand that.

I say, screw that!

So I present my take on the issue...and let any asshole who wants to insist I am an atheist spew his/her nonsense...and fight back.

If that bothers you...

...TOUGH.

What the hell is specious about any of that?

According to the rest of the world's definition of the term, your argument is fucked.

So you are saying that I should not be allowed to have an opinion on a matter that requires that I identify as an atheist.

Suck wind, Asshole.

My comments re the derivation of the word ARE SPOT ON.

The word comes to us from the Greek through the French...and reduces to "a" sans (without) + theos (a god) = without a god. There is absolutely NOTHING in the etymology of the word that deals with "without a 'belief' that any gods exist."

How in the world can anyone claim to be "without a god" except by implying that there are no gods. IF THERE IS A GOD OF ANY KIND...WE ARE ALL "WITH" A GOD.

So save your bullshit.

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

BOTTOM LINE...an atheist is someone who designates him/herself to be an atheist. It is a self-applied descriptor...which obviously means all sorts of things to various atheists, because there are a dozen qualifiers used by various self-proclaimed atheists. We see STRONG atheists; WEAK atheists; NEGATIVE atheists; POSITIVE atheists; IMPLICIT atheists; EXPLICIT atheists; agnostic atheists; and the songs play on.

You've contradicted your previous assertion with this statement, which is more correct in regard to the use of the word "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

All the babies of the world...all the toddlers of the world...all the unfortunates who are intellectually incapable of forming a "belief"...

By the way you describe your views about belief, that would include you.

I have no idea of what the hell you were trying to say there and failed.

There is no way I will allow you or anyone else to require that I be an atheist. If you are not bright enough to see the reasoning behind that...tough.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that I should not be allowed to have an opinion on a matter that requires that I identify as an atheist.

I'm sure you know the saying about opinions and assholes. Have your opinion.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Suck wind, Asshole.

Heh

Frank Apisa wrote:

My comments re the derivation of the word ARE SPOT ON.

The word comes to us from the Greek through the French...and reduces to "a" sans (without) + theos (a god) = without a god. There is absolutely NOTHING in the etymology of the word that deals with "without a 'belief' that any gods exist."

How in the world can anyone claim to be "without a god" except by implying that there are no gods. IF THERE IS A GOD OF ANY KIND...WE ARE ALL "WITH" A GOD.

Your comments in regard to the term are not spot on. The use of the word has always involved notions about disbelief, which would be encompassed by the idea of "without god."

Frank Apisa wrote:

So save your bullshit.

The bullshit is in your tortured attempts to redefine the term.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

BOTTOM LINE...an atheist is someone who designates him/herself to be an atheist. It is a self-applied descriptor...which obviously means all sorts of things to various atheists, because there are a dozen qualifiers used by various self-proclaimed atheists. We see STRONG atheists; WEAK atheists; NEGATIVE atheists; POSITIVE atheists; IMPLICIT atheists; EXPLICIT atheists; agnostic atheists; and the songs play on.

You've contradicted your previous assertion with this statement, which is more correct in regard to the use of the word "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

All the babies of the world...all the toddlers of the world...all the unfortunates who are intellectually incapable of forming a "belief"...

By the way you describe your views about belief, that would include you.

I have no idea of what the hell you were trying to say there and failed.

Apologies, you weren't contradicting yourself. Asserting "what should be" is not the same as acknowledging "what is."

What you're doing is pissing against the wind.

And I'm sure you are intellectually capable of forming a belief, merely, you assert that you, although intellectually capable of doing so, do not form beliefs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is no way I will allow you or anyone else to require that I be an atheist. If you are not bright enough to see the reasoning behind that...tough.

The requirement is merely stating that you "do not believe gods exist," to be an atheist, according to the generally accepted definitions.

Your thoughts are muddled.

The argument, although he denies it applies, against Schellenberg's assertion is that it makes demands of God, and God is under no obligation to submit to these demands.

I think there are believers who take God as seriously as Strawson alleges atheists and agnostics take God.

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence.

Quote:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence.

Doesn't that strike you as rather pretentious? Or at very least, ignorant of theological claims? Virtually all of them claim in one form or another that 'Their kingdom is not of this world". So to dismiss any notion of God on the basis of this one is disingenuous at best.

Something to ponder on the subject of atheism, atheists and agnostics:

A pro-God atheist like John Schellenberg (who coined the term) is someone who in some real sense loves God or at least the idea of God, who tries very hard to imagine what sorts of wonderful worlds such a being might create (instead of just assuming that such a being would create a world something like the world we observe), and who (at least partly) for that very reason believes that God does not exist. Such an atheist might be sympathetic to the following sentiments:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. (Strawson 1990)

To ponder on the term ‘agnostic’: if the proposition in question is that neither theism nor atheism is known to be true, then the term ‘agnostic’ can no longer serve as a label for those who are neither theists nor atheists since one can consistently believe that atheism (or theism) is true while denying that atheism (or theism) is known to be true. Doesn’t this make sense?

It may be that some of the audience this thesis is aimed at and who read ‘Swanson 1990’ which your post is alluding to, and is a partial quote (and an edited part of my post) agree with your sentiment.

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

igm wrote:

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.

The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.

Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"