Why I am an agnostic

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have been called out on your use of the "God" rather than god or gods. If you are talking about a particular God...name the God, be it Jupiter, Wodin or Zeus.

The not buying of the arguments for multiple gods applies as well.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The suggestion that "atheist" just means "someone who does not 'believe' any gods exist"...is nonsense.

That is not my argument.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not "believe" any gods exist...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

By definition, you are.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I also do not "believe" there are no gods...AND I AM NOT A THEIST.

You contradict yourself, and in so doing, your agnostic argument is based on an eroneous premis.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am suggesting that while all atheists "lack a 'belief' that any gods exist"...NOT ALL people who lack a "belief" that any gods exist are atheist.

As per the explation above, that's incorrect.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some are simply non-theists.

By definition they are atheists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nearly as I can see, the reason people who use the descriptor "atheist" use it...is because they "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The use of the word, as far as I am concerned, is based on one of those "beliefs"...not because of allegiance to a dictionary definition given in some, not all, reference books.

There are other uses of that descriptor.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have been called out on your use of the "God" rather than god or gods. If you are talking about a particular God...name the God, be it Jupiter, Wodin or Zeus.

The not buying of the arguments for multiple gods applies as well.

I am not interested in what you are buying and not buying.

If you mean god or gods...say that. If you mean God...and are referencing a particular god...tell me what god you are referencing.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

The suggestion that "atheist" just means "someone who does not 'believe' any gods exist"...is nonsense.

That is not my argument.

It sounds as though it is. But...we'll carry on until I find out what your argument actually is. I'd love to hear it some time.

My argument, which I have presented several times is:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...

...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not "believe" any gods exist...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

By definition, you are.

Nonsense. An atheist is someone who chooses to label him/herself an atheist. The only people arguing that every person who lacks a "belief" in any gods is an "atheist" are atheists, who want to include agnostics in their numbers...apparently to raise the IQ of the group.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I also do not "believe" there are no gods...AND I AM NOT A THEIST.

You contradict yourself, and in so doing, your agnostic argument is based on an eroneous premis.

Where do you see me contradicting myself???? I have not done so.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am suggesting that while all atheists "lack a 'belief' that any gods exist"...NOT ALL people who lack a "belief" that any gods exist are atheist.

As per the explation above, that's incorrect.

Slow down, Blue. You misspelled "premise" above...and now you have misspelled "explanation."

I am telling you point blank that not all people who lack a "belief" in any gods are atheists...mostly because I lack a "belief" in any gods...and I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some are simply non-theists.

By definition they are atheists.

No...they are not. Atheist want that to be so...but no matter how much you want me, you cannot have me.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nearly as I can see, the reason people who use the descriptor "atheist" use it...is because they "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The use of the word, as far as I am concerned, is based on one of those "beliefs"...not because of allegiance to a dictionary definition given in some, not all, reference books.

There are other uses of that descriptor.

I don't care how many other uses there are for that descriptor. If you want certain dictionaries to require that you call yourself an atheist...that is your problem. I am not an atheist.

If you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor, I would bet huge money that you either "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

But if you want to make those blind guesses...fine with me.

I am not an atheist.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have been called out on your use of the "God" rather than god or gods. If you are talking about a particular God...name the God, be it Jupiter, Wodin or Zeus.

The not buying of the arguments for multiple gods applies as well.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The suggestion that "atheist" just means "someone who does not 'believe' any gods exist"...is nonsense.

That is not my argument.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not "believe" any gods exist...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

By definition, you are.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I also do not "believe" there are no gods...AND I AM NOT A THEIST.

You contradict yourself, and in so doing, your agnostic argument is based on an eroneous premis.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am suggesting that while all atheists "lack a 'belief' that any gods exist"...NOT ALL people who lack a "belief" that any gods exist are atheist.

As per the explation above, that's incorrect.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some are simply non-theists.

By definition they are atheists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nearly as I can see, the reason people who use the descriptor "atheist" use it...is because they "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The use of the word, as far as I am concerned, is based on one of those "beliefs"...not because of allegiance to a dictionary definition given in some, not all, reference books.

There are other uses of that descriptor.

I am particularly interested in where you think I have contradicted myself.

I hope you deal with that first.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not interested in what you are buying and not buying.

What you are interested in is irrelevant. That I don't buy the arguments for god or gods is a definition of the term atheist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

The suggestion that "atheist" just means "someone who does not 'believe' any gods exist"...is nonsense.

That is not my argument.

It sounds as though it is. But...we'll carry on until I find out what your argument actually is. I'd love to hear it some time.

I've already stated my argument. The simplest definition of atheist is one who does not buy the arguments for God, god, gods.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not "believe" any gods exist...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

By definition, you are.

Nonsense. An atheist is someone who chooses to label him/herself an atheist. The only people arguing that every person who lacks a "belief" in any gods is an "atheist" are atheists, who want to include agnostics in their numbers...apparently to raise the IQ of the group.

You're an atheist by your first declaration. You contradict yourself in your second declaration.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

I also do not "believe" there are no gods...AND I AM NOT A THEIST.

You contradict yourself, and in so doing, your agnostic argument is based on an eroneous premis.

Where do you see me contradicting myself???? I have not done so.

Yes you have. I've pointed it out to you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Slow down, Blue. You misspelled "premise" above...and now you have misspelled "explanation."

It happens.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am telling you point blank that not all people who lack a "belief" in any gods are atheists...mostly because I lack a "belief" in any gods...and I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Your assertions are befuddled.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Some are simply non-theists.

By definition they are atheists.

No...they are not. Atheist want that to be so...but no matter how much you want me, you cannot have me.

Heh, this isn't about you; it's about the definition of the term "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Nearly as I can see, the reason people who use the descriptor "atheist" use it...is because they "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The use of the word, as far as I am concerned, is based on one of those "beliefs"...not because of allegiance to a dictionary definition given in some, not all, reference books.

There are other uses of that descriptor.

I don't care how many other uses there are for that descriptor.

What you care about is irrelevant to the definition of the term "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor, I would bet huge money that you either "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

But if you want to make those blind guesses...fine with me.

You'd loose huge money.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not an atheist.

You're arguments are befuddled.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not interested in what you are buying and not buying.

What you are interested in is irrelevant. That I don't buy the arguments for god or gods is a definition of the term atheist.

Frank Apisa wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

The suggestion that "atheist" just means "someone who does not 'believe' any gods exist"...is nonsense.

That is not my argument.

It sounds as though it is. But...we'll carry on until I find out what your argument actually is. I'd love to hear it some time.

I've already stated my argument. The simplest definition of atheist is one who does not buy the arguments for God, god, gods.

Frank Apisa wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not "believe" any gods exist...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

By definition, you are.

Nonsense. An atheist is someone who chooses to label him/herself an atheist. The only people arguing that every person who lacks a "belief" in any gods is an "atheist" are atheists, who want to include agnostics in their numbers...apparently to raise the IQ of the group.

You're an atheist by your first declaration. You contradict yourself in your second declaration.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

I also do not "believe" there are no gods...AND I AM NOT A THEIST.

You contradict yourself, and in so doing, your agnostic argument is based on an eroneous premis.

Where do you see me contradicting myself???? I have not done so.

Yes you have. I've pointed it out to you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Slow down, Blue. You misspelled "premise" above...and now you have misspelled "explanation."

It happens.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am telling you point blank that not all people who lack a "belief" in any gods are atheists...mostly because I lack a "belief" in any gods...and I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Your assertions are befuddled.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Some are simply non-theists.

By definition they are atheists.

No...they are not. Atheist want that to be so...but no matter how much you want me, you cannot have me.

Heh, this isn't about you; it's about the definition of the term "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Nearly as I can see, the reason people who use the descriptor "atheist" use it...is because they "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The use of the word, as far as I am concerned, is based on one of those "beliefs"...not because of allegiance to a dictionary definition given in some, not all, reference books.

There are other uses of that descriptor.

I don't care how many other uses there are for that descriptor.

What you care about is irrelevant to the definition of the term "atheist."

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor, I would bet huge money that you either "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

But if you want to make those blind guesses...fine with me.

You'd loose huge money.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I am not an atheist.

You're arguments are befuddled.

You are babbling and ranting, Blue...apparently trying to avoid having to acknowledge that you are wrong.

In this post you wrote, "You're an atheist by your first declaration. You contradict yourself in your second declaration." In your previous post, you wrote, "You contradict yourself, and in so doing, your agnostic argument is based on an eroneous (sic) premis (sic)."

I am saying that I have not contradicted myself in any way.

Point out the contradiction you erroneously suppose exists.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Why are you so concerned about what words Frank uses to describe his belief system?

1 Reply

Proof for lack of a deity:

Why would this "god" make someone who is: queer, left-handed, broken with outspokenness, and still alive? He (She, It) would have to be nuts. - David Lyga

1 Reply

@david lyga,

Quote:

Why would this "god" make someone who is: queer, left-handed, broken with outspokenness, and still alive?

Because He is non-discriminatory and He truly loves you, obviously.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Boy, that is quite a complement that I am not used to hearing! - David Lyga

0 Replies

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. [a brief etymology follows]

This is a common use of the word, which simply means a "non-believer" to many people. It's simply not worth debating the topic when Frank's onboard. Anything you say will be labeled "bullshit", or something similar, and you will eventually be called a "jerk", or something worse. I've always considered Frank an online "friend" (for what it's worth) and I appreciate his presence on A2K. His insistence on there being only one definition of the term is obviously a firmly-held belief – any other usage is simply wrong. So if Frank's around and if I absolutely have to discuss theological issues or define my religious status, I just take care not to open a can of worms by provoking him. And if were asked, in real life, to describe my position – which never happens – I'd answer that I'm an "implicit" atheist and explain how that differs from "explicit" atheism. Because, really — who cares?

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. [a brief etymology follows]

This is a common use of the word, which simply means a "non-believer" to many people. It's simply not worth debating the topic when Frank's onboard. Anything you say will be labeled "bullshit", or something similar, and you will eventually be called a "jerk", or something worse. I've always considered Frank an online "friend" (for what it's worth) and I appreciate his presence on A2K. His insistence on there being only one definition of the term is obviously a firmly-held belief – any other usage is simply wrong. So if Frank's around and if I absolutely have to discuss theological issues or define my religious status, I just take care not to open a can of worms by provoking him. And if were asked, in real life, to describe my position – which never happens – I'd answer that I'm an "implicit" atheist and explain how that differs from "explicit" atheism. Because, really — who cares?

Bullshit.

An atheist is simply someone who identifies as an atheist. And every person I have ever met or known of who identifies as an atheists has one thing in common...the "belief" that there are no gods or the "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

All the people who identify as atheists realize that is so...but most don't have the guts or ethical wherewithal to acknowledge it.

No person should be DEEMED an atheist simply because of a lack of a "belief" in a god. I am not an atheist because of that description; my good friend's two month old granddaughter is not an atheist because of that description; the toddler in the stroller just passing by our front yard is not an atheist because of that description; a relative of mine who does not have the mental capacity for such "belief" is not an atheist because of that description.

Atheists like to pretend they call themselves atheists simply because of a lack of "belief" because they are not ethically substantive enough to acknowledge they choose the descriptor because of what they "believe."

Stop the bullshit...and acknowledge that the descriptor "atheist" is self-applied because of "beliefs"...not the bullshit of lack of beliefs.

If you don't, people will think you to be a jerk.

1 Reply

Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Point out the contradiction you erroneously suppose exists.

You've already quoted it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Why are you so concerned about what words Frank uses to describe his belief system?

To be clear as to what his argument is.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Even now, after all these years you’re still unclear on Frank’s position re theology?

Where the **** have you been?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Point out the contradiction you erroneously suppose exists.

You've already quoted it.

Stop being cute and quote what you see to be contradictory.

I suspect I know what you erroneously think to be contradictory...but that would simply establish that you are careless with your understanding of the English language.

Point the contradiction out with a quote...or be man enough to acknowledge you are wrong in your charge.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Bullshit.

Bullshit!

EDIT:

Quote:

And every person I have ever met or known of who identifies as an atheists has one thing in common...the "belief" that there are no gods or the "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

So what?

I don't "identify as an atheist" — I don't even know what that means. I "identify" as myself, my name, who I am, my history. The only reason I'd ever describe my theological position is if I'm asked. And people don't discuss that stuff in polite circles.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Bullshit.

Bullshit!

Touché!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

quoting Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fran Apisa wrote:

If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing. . .

Then, for our purposes, lets stick to the more traditional definitions of the term "theism" found in dictionaries and do away with the question begging.

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

1.(Theology) the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation. Compare deism
2. (Theology) the belief in the existence of a God or gods. Compare atheism
Collins English Dictionary

1. belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (disting. from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I had a choice between this forum and watching paint dry. I chose the former.

1 Reply

Why I am an agnostic

Quick Links

My Account

able2know