14
   

All atheists and theists are agnostics?

 
 
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 04:23 pm
A certain someone in my philosophy thread gave an incredibly incoherent account against fallibilism (the position I was arguing for). Out of curiosity and potential amusement I decided to give his profile a look. I quote:

Quote:
I believe, if you will excuse that seemingly incongruous expression, that everyone is an agnostic. It's just that we agnostics come in two categories--those who acknowledge that we don't know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know. That latter category includes the theists and the atheists (two sides of one coin)--both of whom suppose they know the answers to those unanswerable questions.


This entire argument hinges on the fact that atheists and theists 'suppose they know the answer to those unanswerable questions.' This is clearly wrong. Atheism and theism is based on belief not knowledge. The basis for my athiesm runs:

An athiest is a person who disbelieves of lacks a belief in god
I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an athiest

Fairly simple and straightforward, yeah? And, unlike his argument, I actually use the real definition of 'atheist'. So what do you guys this? Are all theists and atheists, well, not theists and atheists?

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 04:28 pm
@BL0CPARTY,
I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an atheiest.

I agree with that, but have no interesting in arguing about it.
Trust me on that.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 05:07 pm
BL0CPARTY wrote:
athiesm; athiest; athiest

ossobuco wrote:
atheiest

I await with keen anticipation the first person (apart from me) in this thread who can consistently spell 'atheist' correctly.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 05:19 pm
We have so many threads just like this. I will say anyway that I am an atheist. I regard agnostics as either cowards or covert deists. By rhetorical sleight of hand, they seek to make atheists tow the line of agnosticism or deism. Why? Because they cannot abide any negation of their failure to grasp life by the balls and squeeze. It is, simply, bullshit.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 05:21 pm
@contrex,
Boo boo. I meant to spell the word that means without theism.
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 05:23 pm
@BL0CPARTY,
BL0CPARTY wrote:
Atheism and theism is based on belief not knowledge. The basis for my athiesm runs:
An athiest is a person who disbelieves of lacks a belief in god
I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an athiest

Fits non-dogmatic atheism or any similar sub-distinction that taxonomists have concocted after pushing their cognitive discriminations and analysis of the concept [atheism] farther than the mundane borders which the more indolent among us are content with.

I've at least encountered the "dogmatic theist" counterpart of the so-called "dogmatic atheist" in person, which does not regard his/her mental stance as a belief. Though neutral or disinterested parties should still classify it as such due to having no access to the individual's claimed "private knowledge / revelation". So round and round with the word-game contexts feuding with themselves.

Leon F. Seltzer wrote:
... the prominent French philosopher André Comte-Sponville, makes the distinction between the “dogmatic atheist” and the “non-dogmatic atheist.” ... For the assuredness of [...former...] atheism borders on an arrogance comparable to that of their fundamentalist-believing counterparts. In their outspoken conviction, they’re quite prepared to go on record declaring the non-existence of any supernatural being. Which is to say, their claim is not expressed as an opinion but as undeniable fact.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 07:01 pm
@BL0CPARTY,
BL0CPARTY wrote:

A certain someone in my philosophy thread gave an incredibly incoherent account against fallibilism (the position I was arguing for). Out of curiosity and potential amusement I decided to give his profile a look. I quote:

Quote:
I believe, if you will excuse that seemingly incongruous expression, that everyone is an agnostic. It's just that we agnostics come in two categories--those who acknowledge that we don't know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know. That latter category includes the theists and the atheists (two sides of one coin)--both of whom suppose they know the answers to those unanswerable questions.


This entire argument hinges on the fact that atheists and theists 'suppose they know the answer to those unanswerable questions.' This is clearly wrong. Atheism and theism is based on belief not knowledge. The basis for my athiesm runs:

An athiest is a person who disbelieves of lacks a belief in god
I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an athiest

Fairly simple and straightforward, yeah? And, unlike his argument, I actually use the real definition of 'atheist'. So what do you guys this? Are all theists and atheists, well, not theists and atheists?




I am that "certain someone" (almost no one else actually questioned you and asked for more information on what you were trying to impart)...and I did not give an "incoherent account against fallibilism."

In fact I didn't give any account against fallibilism at all...coherent or incoherent.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Bloc.

But talk about INCOHERENT:


Quote:
An athiest is a person who disbelieves of lacks a belief in god
I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an athiest


That is a thing of beauty, Bloc.

Did you have someone insane helping you compose it?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 07:05 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an atheiest.


Why do atheists have so much trouble spelling the word. Bloc spelled it wrong up above also.

Anyway...I lack a belief in gods also, but I am not an atheist.

Why do you atheists think you have a lock on refusal to have a belief in gods?

Is it because of a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word?


Quote:
I agree with that, but have no interesting in arguing about it.
Trust me on that.


I trust you on that, Ossobuco. But perhaps you would be willing to discuss it, rather than argue it.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 07:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

We have so many threads just like this. I will say anyway that I am an atheist. I regard agnostics as either cowards or covert deists.


Well if you weren't so cocky, Edgar, you might consider agnostics as people telling the truth.

They do not know some things...and acknowledge that they do not.

You, on the other hand, assert you know there are no gods. (huge laugh)




Quote:
By rhetorical sleight of hand, they seek to make atheists tow the line of agnosticism or deism.




I do not think they do that at all...and I certainly don't. I think you just made that up.

Quote:

Why? Because they cannot abide any negation of their failure to grasp life by the balls and squeeze. It is, simply, bullshit.


Nah...it really is because we want to acknowledge that we do not know what we do not know.

Guys like you just cannot do that.

But since you are ignoring me...you will not be able to read any of this.

Too bad that.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 07:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
By the way...many of the atheists and theists here in A2K readily acknowledge that they are agnostics also...agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.

Not sure why Bloc is having trouble with that.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 07:39 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I have written the word correctly many times and didn't this time. Get a grip, Frank.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 08:10 pm
@BL0CPARTY,
I think that single words always fall short of describing a person's thoughts accurately. I tell people I'm an Atheist because that gets them most closely into the ballpark for what I believe, but if they really want to understand me they will have to ask for a lot more detail and examples. And even then, I'm not sure anyone's feelings can be explained in mere words.
BL0CPARTY
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2014 09:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well technically speaking I'm an agnostic atheist. But the agnostic part is a rather trivial. All it does it narrate how the truth value of god is unknowable or unprovable. This fact has no barring whatsoever on my atheism.

For example, I can still have insightful discussions like, "I don't believe god exists because, X, Y, and Z." Essentially, I can still have good and justified reasons for my lack of belief in god, even if the ultimate truth value is unknown. By definition, I'm agonostic about floating teacups rotating around Jupiter, but I can still have solid reasons for denying that is the case.

Oh and break down this argument for me if you will:

P1. An atheist, by definition, is a person who lacks a belief in god
P2. Frank Apisa is a person who lacks a belief in god
C. Therefore, Frank Apisa is an atheist

Tell me Frank, which logical error have I committed or which premise is wrong? If I have committed no logical error and both premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:51 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

I think that single words always fall short of describing a person's thoughts accurately. I tell people I'm an Atheist because that gets them most closely into the ballpark for what I believe, but if they really want to understand me they will have to ask for a lot more detail and examples. And even then, I'm not sure anyone's feelings can be explained in mere words.


Exactly. Which is the reason I seldom use the word "agnostic" as a description for myself these days. I give my impression of my agnosticism instead.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:57 am
@BL0CPARTY,
BL0CPARTY wrote:

Well technically speaking I'm an agnostic atheist. But the agnostic part is a rather trivial. All it does it narrate how the truth value of god is unknowable or unprovable. This fact has no barring whatsoever on my atheism.


How do you know that the existence of a GOD is unknowable or unable to be proved, Bloc?

Quote:
For example, I can still have insightful discussions like, "I don't believe god exists because, X, Y, and Z."


Fine. And I can blindly guess one way or the other also.

So what?


Quote:
Essentially, I can still have good and justified reasons for my lack of belief in god, even if the ultimate truth value is unknown. By definition, I'm agonostic about floating teacups rotating around Jupiter, but I can still have solid reasons for denying that is the case.


Okay, but once you deny something (which means to assert that something does not exist)...you create a burden of proof for yourself.

I do not do that, but you are free to do it if you choose.


Quote:
Oh and break down this argument for me if you will:

P1. An atheist, by definition, is a person who lacks a belief in god
P2. Frank Apisa is a person who lacks a belief in god
C. Therefore, Frank Apisa is an atheist


All atheists lack a belief in GOD.
Not all people who lack a belief in GOD are atheists.
Frank Apisa is not an atheist.


Quote:
Tell me Frank, which logical error have I committed or which premise is wrong?


The first one.



Quote:
If I have committed no logical error and both premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.


If Batman could fly, he might be Superman in disguise.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 02:07 am
Actually, all theists and agnostics are atheists--they just don't know it, or are unwilling to admit it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 02:12 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Actually, all theists and agnostics are atheists--they just don't know it, or are unwilling to admit it.


Interesting that you would use the words "admit it" rather than "acknowledge it" in that sentence.

Not sure of your reasoning here, Setanta...but it makes no sense to me.

And you are one of the atheists in this forum who has acknowledged that you are an agnostic atheist.






Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 02:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
It never surprises me to learn that you don't understand simple English.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 02:21 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

It never surprises me to learn that you don't understand simple English.


I understand simple English, Setanta. I even understand complicated English.

I was just surprised you used "admit" in that sentence rather than "acknowledge."

So...how is it that all agnostics and theists are actually atheists?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 02:23 am
I don't believe that you do understand simple English, beyond playing idiotic word games. Your latest response confirms that belief for me.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » All atheists and theists are agnostics?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 06:46:55