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

Setanta...I have acknowledged that belief and the absence or rejection of belief are not equivalent positions.

In fact, I have used that as part of my arguments for why the two components of my title are not incompatible--particularly that first part.

When I say "I do not believe gods exist"....I AM NOT saying "I believe gods do not exist."

They are NOT equivalent!

Yes, and that's why the position that you maintained for years and years, which you so forcefully expounded in Portal Star's thread on agnosticism, has been falling apart. Then, you told people what they could and could not know. Then, you asserted that your position as an agnostic is superior to the position of either the atheist or the theist. Because, then, you asserted that those positions are equal but opposing. You've revised your position radically over the last ten years, although i doubt that you'll admit it.

What I find most telling is the amount of Atheists who can't accept that Frank is an Agnostic. Frank's not telling people what they should believe. The same is not true of all the Evangelical Atheists who think they know Frank better than he knows himself.

Who exactly are they? Frank has, over the years, consistently told people what they can and cannot know. Years and years ago, if someone said there is no god, Frank would pounce on them for it, until the nickel finally dropped for him, and he realized that saying that someone can't know something is to assert that one does oneself know something to which one's interlocutor is not privy, or won't admit. Frank long maintained that his position as an agnostic is superior to the position of either the theist or the atheist. He long had a signature line to the effect that to admit what one does not know is a sign of strength, but to pretend to know what one does not know is a sign of weakness. It took years, but he finally realized that that inferentially suggests that he can separate the wheat from the chaff, that he can identify those who do not know, but only pretend to know--that that inferentially suggests that he, himself knows, because otherwise, he'd not be able to identify who is pretending to know what they cannot in fact know. Initially, of couse, he had theists and atheists in mind. He long attempted to assert that all atheists are those who explicitly state that there is no god. That was essential to maintaining his polemic of being intellectually superior.

It has taken years for Frank to begin to see the flaws in his rhetorical position. I have no problem with that, and in fact applaud those who do that. My problem with Frank is that this is polemic, it is adversarial argumentation, and he has been consistently dishonest about it. Several months ago i pointed out to him that he had always maintained that his position is superior. He denied that, so i went to the trouble of going back to old threads to find the quotes. He finally acknowledged that he had done so, and that he couldn't sustain such a position. Within a few pages in that thread, he was once again asserting the superiority of his position, and within a few months, he denied that that incident took place. I'm certainly not going to run down his old post twice a month or every week. But i have a good memory, i have gone back to his old posts, and i know he is dishonest about these things. That is my problem, his dishonesty.

Your problem, of course, is minor. You're a contrarian who leaps on any opportunity to contradict others.

Once again, who are these atheists to whom you refer? You wrote about the amount of them. Just how many would that be?

Look back over this thread and see how many people are telling Frank he's an Atheist.

Just because I don't slavishly agree with everything you say doesn't make me a contrarian. If anyone's a contrarian, it's you. You're the one who can't accept Frank's position.

I don't have a problem with what Frank believes, although I do find it ridiculous that someone is so fanatical about their beliefs they would spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to prove new born babes are Atheists.

This was your claim. These people are not telling Frank that he is not an agnostic, and they make a point of saying that. They are just saying, that, by definition, he is also an atheist. It's hardly my fault that you can't seem to understand such an unsubtle distinction.

I don't have a problem accepting Frank's position. I have been pointing out two things. That his position has changed markedly over the years, and that he is dishonest about it. He has been dishonest through the years about the changes in his position, and he's even dishonest about his dishonesty. It's hardly my fault that your reading skills are so poor that you failed to absorb what i made patently clear.

I have no notion of why you're on about newborn babies. That is certainly no subject which i brought up or have pursued. Definitionally, of course, new born babies are atheists. But so what? It has nothing to do with me. Have the courtesy to restrict your sneers to what i actually write, rather than just any old gripe you have with the community at large.

You asked about what the community at large were saying.

He does not consider himself to be an Atheist, it's not a case of being unable to understand an unsubtle distinction, it's more to do with people being allowed to believe what they want, without preachy knowitalls ramming their religion down their throats.

I did not at any time ask what the community at large were saying.



So, i asked: "Who exactly are they?" and "Once again, who are these atheists to whom you refer? You wrote about the amount of them. Just how many would that be?"

These are, of course, questions which you have not answered.

It doesn't matter whether or not Frank considers himself to be an atheist. Definitionally he is an atheist, which is what i said. No one is denying Frank his right to believe what he wants. It is an unsubtle distinction which, apparently, you continue to fail to understand. You seem to have a bug up your ass about "preachy knowitalls." That's rich, coming from you. No one is ramming anything down anyone's throat. This is what we come here to do, to discuss ideas which people put forward. Frank can believe that he is not an atheist, but by definition he is, so long as he says that he does not believe that god exists. It is not the fault of anyone here that he mucks it all up with that idiotic contention that he also does not believe that there are no gods.

I'm just about to go out to my son's school play, and don't have time for your nonsense, but going back one page I found this by Thomas.



He's not alone, you can go back over the thread to find the rest. I've got better things to do.

Your statement,



is equally preachy. You're a ******* evangelist. It doesn't matter whether or not you consider yourself to be one, definitionally you are one.

Give him a break, isn't freedom of conscience one of your country's defining principles?

Yes, i'm sure that you consider your failures of understanding to be nonsense. I'm sure you have better things to do than to attempt to defend an indefensible position.

A single quote by Thomas does not constitute evidence either that there are very many people telling Frank that he is an atheist, and especially that they are unable to accept his position or are shoving anything down his throat. Once again, the unsubtle disstinction--saying that he is by definition an atheist is not a denial that he is agnostic. Frank may not like that; you may not like that; too bad, so sad, boo-hoo.

I see you edited while i was replying. Got nastier, too, huh? I'm not a "*******" anything, you foul-mouthed, whiny little ****. I'm not an evangelist of any kind. I almost never discuss these subjects in real life, and when i do, it's because someone else brings it up. No one is denying Frank his freedom of conscience. Just to remind you, these discussions are what we come here to do. Frank started this thread. Nobody hunted him down in order to beat up on him for his point of view. You pays yer money and you takes yer chances.

Nah, I think the problem is that he just doesn't speak English as well as he thinks he does. That's why he can't believe the dictionary when it tells him that his usage of the words atheist and disbelief is false (to a prescriptive linguist) or at least nonstandard (to a descriptive linguist).

While acknowleding the force of what you say, i'll just point out that i consider his position polemical in that he will argue desparately to maintain the claim, explicit or inferential, that his position is superior.

In your haste to provide another non-answer, you failed to address this question:



And while you're at it, you can make another attempt to avoid answering this:

You're right, Set, about Frank's thinking that his position is superior which is an odd argument because he doesn't appear to claim a position. He says he has no opinion on the matter of gods; the title of the thread according to him, is a recitation, not an opinion, a philosophical statement, not of belief but of what is not believed, an inverted koan, (no pun intended).

I have no opinion as to whether all apples float, but if I were asked, or, as in this case, I offered what appears to be an opinion as the title of the thread, I would feel obligated to take a stand.



Frank won't do that. He won't take a stand. Proudly proclaiming what? His inability to figure out in a positive manner what he does believe. He wants to ask us the questions or, weirdly, re-word our questions and answer the re-worked version.

That's why I agree with him.
Frank is not an atheist.
I wouldn't let him claim to be, if he ever made such a claim.
I love the guy but I would love him more if he just got off the dime.

I cannot conceive of a purpose for an eternal being in an already eternal universe. So, not only do I believe there are no gods presently, I can't figure out why anyone would think any of them ever existed.

Joe(That's just me)Nation

Hey everyone. Back from golf. Best round I've had in weeks, so I am in high spirits. Love ya all.

I will be responding to some of the things said while I was on the course in just a bit. Gotta grab something to eat first.

I'm not anywhere near as nasty as you, you evangelist. I'm not the one having a conniption because Frank doesn't believes as I do.

Frank's an Agnostic, why can't you accept that? Would you have him approach you in sackcloth and ashes and swear loyalty to Richard Dawkins for daring not to be an Atheist.

If, as you claim, Atheism is not a religion, it might help if you stopped acting like one of the Spanish Inquisition.

I'm not having a conniption, although i'm sure it helps you to feel self-righteous to make the claim. Obviously, you don't understand what evangelist means. As for who's nasty, i wasn't calling you any names, nor describing you as a "*******" anything. Now you're whining--typical.

I accept that Frank's an agnostic. Being agnostic and being atheist are not mutally exclusive--in fact, that would be an accurate description of my point of view. As for that religious bullshit you're peddling, it's hilarious. As i've already pointed out, i am not telling anyone what they should believe, nor does this ever come up in real life. You need to get used to the fact that we are just having a discussion, which Frank started. If anyone here is having a conniption, it's you. You're getting hysterical.

All i want from Frank is a sincere act of contrition. (A joke i know he'll get, although i doubt that you will.)

Ahhh, let me be general about this.

I am not an atheist…and the notion that there is a definitional requirement that I be considered an atheist and that babies are definitionally atheists also…is an absurdity almost too great even for the atheists debating here in this forum.

C’mon, guys. It is not necessary to use this tired, mistaken definition of “atheist” in order to make it sound as though people like me are atheists…or that babies are atheists.

Just recognize and acknowledge that the entire line of reasoning that leads to people claiming that simply “not believing in at least one god” makes one an “atheist’…is an absurdity. It doesn’t stand up to reason…and you guys are always touting your logic and reason. “A” prefixed to “theist” was not how the word “atheist” came about!

Up until fairly recently, an atheist was someone who denied the existence of gods. It’s introduction into the English language seems to include that notion in its true etymological derivation.

At some point, debating atheists realized that denying the existence of gods was really just a belief…or an unsupported assertion. Debating atheists, preferring not to stand up for their “beliefs” and not wanting to be asked to support their assertions, decided that there were “weak atheists” and “strong atheists.” Weak atheists claim nothing more than a lack of belief in any god…and you can find them all over the Internet. It saves them from having to do the heavy lifting.

There are, to their credit, a few strong atheists on the Internet…and almost every atheist I have ever met outside of debate has been a strong atheist.

Weak atheists share things in common with some agnostics. Apparently because of that, the atheists here want to include them in the atheistic family…and because of the (absurd) reasoning involved in making that connection, they have to include babies in that family also.

Now look, if the atheists here are doing this for the joke value…man, they are on to something really funny. I am loving it…belly laughing about it with the people with whom I share snippets of it.

If however, they are serious, they’ve got a long haul ahead of them before any thinking person buys into this particular brand of snake oil.

I, in any case, AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

IZZY…thank you for being reasonable and trying to share your reasoning with these guys, but obviously they have way too much invested in their arguments to actually be the reasonable, logical individuals they constantly claim to be. Do stick around…and I hope you enjoy the theatrics as much as I am…and will be.