He is actually making a statement like....
"Balls are round for tennis but not for football (USA). So I'm not prepared to discount either of the statement that "balls are round" or "balls are not round".
The fallacy of agnosticism is that the God (ball) of theists is the same as the God for atheists. Atheists don't play religion (tennis).
Read you earlier post…and my reply to it.
It is entirely possible for a person to:
Not believe gods exist...and...
not believe gods do not exist.
Come to the light Frank, be an atheist, we have cookies.
Some atheists go beyond that into firm belief that there are no gods, which is a belief by definition, systematic or not. I don't consider my stance weak and I don't name it weak atheism. And neither do many others who share my lack of belief.
It is no different with gremlins or flying pink elephants.
Quote:It is no different with gremlins or flying pink elephants.
No, it IS different ! Theists start with the axiom that their own existence is predicated on the existence of a deity, and "evidence" to that end is staring them in the face.
The key issue which distinguishes atheists from agnostics is that atheists tend to see theists as a potential social threat,
even if they acknowledge that "gods" are psychological palliatives at the individual level. Atheism is by etymological definition a reaction to theism, and not merely a belief or logical stance.
I put the word "evidence" in inverted commas. The fact that you and I don't accept their categorization is irrelevant especially when they play "the trump cards" (1)that acceptance of their evidence is a test of "faith" and (2) our cognitive ability to "reason" is "a gift from God who made man in his image".
And you are reacting because to comment at all is a social act even if you operate on the mistaken assumption that theists operate on the same rules of evidence as yourself.
For any communication to work, we need to have a basis to rely on or else the conversation doesn't make any sense. I honestly don't care if a believer keeps their belief to themselves but it is rare to find a believer who does. They support those who push religious agendas either directly or indirectly. This is the social dangers where I think must request evidence on behalf of the believer that is convincing to me otherwise what they are trying to promote is not worthy of accepting
Wait ! ! ! It's a bait thread, he's trying to sucker you ! ! ! Go back ! ! !