I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

@failures art,

Quote:

Partly correct. He is correct in it's usage in so much as he understands it describes a position of knowledge that is insufficient to establish a statement of fact, but he's far off when he thinks that there is some sort of mutual exclusivity with other terms of belief (athiest, theist, etc).

Where have I ever suggested that the two are mutually exclusive? I have never done so...and in many threads, I talk about agnostics who are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. But acknowledging that they are not mutually exclusive does not mean that one must be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

One can simply be an agnostic...and refuse to guess in either direction.

Now I understand that your ego requires that any agnostic refusing to accept status as agnostic theist, must be classified as an agnostic atheist. But unless you are offering that for laughs, it really doesn't make any sense. There can be people who are neither theist nor atheist...despite your humorous attempts to make that seem impossible.

C'mon, Art. Get with the logic!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumble...let me start by talking about the definition of "atheist." (I’ll get to agnostic in another post.)

Yeah, and if you could, would you please finally get to that "state of mind" bit you offered up earlier in all your wisdom.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Several of you here have been arguing that anyone who does not express a belief in at least one god...is an atheist. That has gotten to the absurd position of demanding that all babies, toddlers, and adults incapable of understanding concepts like gods or belief...are to be considered atheist.

It's only "absurd" because it wounds your position, so you deny it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did not bother to look up the definition...

Big surprise. Nevermind that definitions were brought to you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

but the insistence of people like you to define me as an atheist caused me to do some research.

Not bad, but as Krumple already pointed out, and I'll demonstrate, you cheery picked.

Frank Apisa wrote:

1) American Heritage Dictionary http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ATHEIST&submit.x=24&submit.y=33

“One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.”

See that word "or?" That shows that there are two classifications of people that satisfy the criteria. It doesn't say "and."

Frank Apisa wrote:

2) Vocabulary.com http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/#word=atheist

An atheist believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity.
The root -theist means "belief in a god." The prefixes mono-,poly-, and a-, mean "one," "many," and "no," respectively. So a monotheist is someone who believes in a single god, a polytheist is someone who believes in many gods, and an atheist is someone who believes there is no god at all.

It should read "gods." Whoever submitted this definition did so only addressing atheism as compared to monotheism.

Frank Apisa wrote:

3) MacMillian Dictionary http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

It should read "gods." Whoever submitted this definition did so only addressing atheism as compared to monotheism.

Same problem.

Frank Apisa wrote:

4) Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

one who believes that there is no deity

It should read "gods." Whoever submitted this definition did so only addressing atheism as compared to monotheism.

Same problem. Three is a trend.

Frank Apisa wrote:

5) Cambridge Dictionary of American English http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

It should read "gods." Whoever submitted this definition did so only addressing atheism as compared to monotheism.

Same problem. Four? You seems to look for definitions, but you didn't seem to concerned with quality.

Frank Apisa wrote:

6) Webster’s Revised Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=atheist&use1913=on

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

It should read "gods." Whoever submitted this definition did so only addressing atheism as compared to monotheism.

This one is also problematic for you in that the pesky "or" pops up again and creates two categories.

Interesting if you read the comments under the definition.
Same problem. Five...

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not fit into any of those definitions of atheist. I do not "disbelieve" the existence of gods nor do I deny the existence of gods.

Please tell me the difference between disbelieve and deny from the book of Frank. You want to use definitions where the words don't mean the same things, so certainly you should be able to tell us the functional difference.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Using these definitions from reputable dictionaries, I am not an atheist.

Don't go soft Frank. There's always more.

Oxford English Dictionary - Atheism (n) - "the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

This definition is not deficient in the way that your monotheistic definitions were.

Also, for the third time in two threads, from Wiki:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]"

Again, a useful description that addresses both mono and poly theism. It also directly addresses the broad and narrow definitions as well as their inclusive bond.

Frank Apisa wrote:

My comments of agnosticism will follow...but I really gotta move the lawnmower right now.

Who is challenging you on if you're an agnostic?

A
R
T

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you suggested that I am a Lithuanian-American, I would say, "No I am not...if anything, I am an Italian-American."

Id' more likely find out you had Italian ancestry, and say, "Frank, you're an Italian American." If then you said you weren't, we'd be in the same position.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am saying I am not an atheist...because I am not an atheist.

Or you're in denial.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no grudge or quarrel with atheism or atheists. They have a right to be whatever they want to be.

Thank you for the right to enjoy my "state of mind." Can you describe that for me?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not nuts about atheists like some of you who insist I have to be an atheist also, but I carry no baggage about atheism at all.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/60656_o.gif

And Luke was totally cool about Vader being his pops...
R
T

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not deny the existence of gods; I do not disbelieve the exitence of gods; and I do not believe gods do not exist.

You forgot, I asked you to tell me the difference between disbelief and deny in this regard. You expect to use definitions that see them as different, so tell us all what the difference is.

A
R
Then we'll all enjoy as you continue your gymnastics.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Ahhhh...so it is you who want to change the definitions.

I get it. And you are just accusing me of wanting to do that to deflect attention from you doing it.

Wow! What a brilliant move. I like it; I commend you.

Who woulda thunk it.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Big surprise. Nevermind that definitions were brought to you.

Not sure of what that means. Do you want to make an assertion that somehow someone sent them to me...or that someone directed me to them?

(Didn't happen, so don't bother!)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Out of these four combinations, you are an agnostic-atheist. You don't have knowledge that a god exists but you also don't believe one exists either.

Nope...you still have it wrong.

I am just an agnostic.

Try to grasp the concept, Krumple. It really isn't that hard.

I cannot get over that you are going through all these tortured contortions to try to make me into an atheist!

Show some pride, Krumple.

By now you should be telling me that if I ever designated myself as an atheist, you would convert to theism and probably become a priest.

Show some pride, Krumple.

Its alright Frank, there are a lot of people who don't like to admit they have a problem or can't face reality for what it is. There is a reason why you don't want to be associated with the term atheist, I can see that. Or else you would just give me the middle finger and say, yeah so what. But you see this baggage as something negative and don't want to associate with it. The same is true for alcoholics when they refuse to admit that they are one. By defintion you are one, regardless if you want to admit to it or not.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Not bad, but as Krumple already pointed out, and I'll demonstrate, you cheery picked.

Nope...no cherry picking. I cut and pasted.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

One can simply be an agnostic...and refuse to guess in either direction.

{athiesm|gods==0, nul}
{theism|gods>=1}

Without a "guess," you're still in the base category of weak atheist (null).

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Who is challenging you on if you're an agnostic?

Stay alert...and keep up. My definition of agnostic was challenged...rather humorously, but challenged.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ahhhh...so it is you who want to change the definitions.

I get it. And you are just accusing me of wanting to do that to deflect attention from you doing it.

Wow! What a brilliant move. I like it; I commend you.

Who woulda thunk it.

What definition did I change. I cited sources. I also demonstrated that your sources either (a) were insufficient because they only related to monotheism, or (b) actually didn't support your position because they included an inclusive "or" statement that separated the concepts of "denial" and "disbelief."

A
R
T

1 Reply

Oh, Art, Krumple...

...you want so very much to have me be an atheist.

I am not.

It is really fun arguing this with you though...and I thank you for that.

I am an agnostic...I am not an atheist, nor am I an agnostic atheist.

You two are a gas!

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

What definition did I change.

You didn't change any...and I didn't say you changed any.

I said you wanted to change them...and if you read your own writing, you will see you wanted in several cases to change the word god to gods.

C'mon, give this up, Art. You will never make me an atheist...no matter how much you want me to be one of you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Big surprise. Nevermind that definitions were brought to you.

Not sure of what that means. Do you want to make an assertion that somehow someone sent them to me...or that someone directed me to them?

(Didn't happen, so don't bother!)

People have posted the two sources I've put up already. You even posted your weak atheist reasoning (to ironically try to exclude yourself from being an atheist).

A
R
The horse is neck deep in the pond but completely unable to find a good place to drink.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

People have posted the two sources I've put up already. You even posted your weak atheist reasoning (to ironically try to exclude yourself from being an atheist).

I wanted to show that the weak atheist position coincides with what I was saying from an agnostic perspective. Weak atheists assert that all they are doing is to indicate an absence of belief that there are gods.

I indicate that also.

I then go on to indicate that for me, there also is an absence of belief that there are no gods.

No irony, except in your mind.

Some weak atheists indicate the same for them; some do not.

Trying to make something of that in favor of your argument is silly.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Who is challenging you on if you're an agnostic?

Stay alert...and keep up. My definition of agnostic was challenged...rather humorously, but challenged.

Your definition, but you can be an agnostic by the proper definition and by a false definition.

Just like if I said being an atheist was defined by my taste in movies, I'd still be an atheist even if I was promoting the incorrect definition. The correct definition would still find me by others. They'd not argue with me that I'm an atheist, because I actually satisfy the actual criteria.

"Don't eat poison because it give you bad breath" is a statement where a person can do the correct thing for the wrong reason. Our concern would not be in telling them that they should eat poison, but to inform them of why their action was actually correct.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oh, Art, Krumple...

...you want so very much to have me be an atheist.

I am not.

It is really fun arguing this with you though...and I thank you for that.

I am an agnostic...I am not an atheist, nor am I an agnostic atheist.

You two are a gas!

Alright fine, but this also means you are delusional. Perhaps it wasn't necessary to point that out or say it. But I thought, hey what the hell, I already tried to convince you that you were what you are and it didn't take so telling you are delusional will probably have the same result. It was worth a shot.

You are just a double sided coin with only one side, I get it.

1 Reply

Ahhh…in another thread, Thomas, wrote: “If atheists are in fact right and there exist no gods…”

So, at least this one atheist is of the opinion that atheists assert that there exist no gods.

That certainly does not mean all do, but it does mean some do…and considering the wording, I suspect Thomas thinks MOST do.

http://able2know.org/topic/190724-2#post-4986675

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Your definition, but you can be an agnostic by the proper definition and by a false definition.

My "definition" was of my personal agnosticism. I assure you...it is my personal agnosticism. And it is well within the definition most agnostics use.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Alright fine, but this also means you are delusional. Perhaps it wasn't necessary to point that out or say it. But I thought, hey what the hell, I already tried to convince you that you were what you are and it didn't take so telling you are delusional will probably have the same result. It was worth a shot.

You are just a double sided coin with only one side, I get it.

You are getting desperate here, Krumple.

I am an agnostic.

I am not an atheist.

I also am not a theist.

I also am not an agnostic atheist nor an agnostic theist.

Not sure why you are having so much trouble with that...but that is the case.

0 Replies

I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know