Agnostic vs Atheist

First, welcome to A2K.

OK- that's outta the way, now on to business.

You've demonstrated what you believe relevant to the matter at discussion, but apart from a bit of sophistry (rather facile, btw; decent job) and some semantical wiggling, you've demonstrated nothing else beyond arrogant supposition.

I have yet to see agnosticism and atheism properly defined in this debate. Without a proper definition of both the debate cannot continue in any rational manner. The current state of the debate is truly no different than if one were to have a debate titled Jabbelocky vs Wubberwocky. It is completely pointless. However, as I shall demonstrate, once both are properly defined the debate still cannot continue.

If one believes in the existence of gods or supernatural deities then one is a theist. The opposite, lack of belief, makes one an atheist. An atheist need not specifically claim that gods or supernatural deities do not exist though some do. The reason is because there are two forms of atheism: positive and negative. A positive atheist is one who believes gods do not exist (there is a "positive" assertion.) A negative atheist is one who simply hasn't been convinced gods do exist (no assertion is made.) Both definitions show the person lacks belief though one is more extreme than the other. Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic. As such, I shall use his own words to define it. "The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence... Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

When one understands the correct definition of atheism, of how it encompasses all that do not fit in the category of theism, is becomes clear that Huxley was bamboozled and used the wrong definition of it. He restricted atheism to its positive side and neglected the negative. When he coined the term "agnostic" he merely slapped a different label on negative atheism. Thus, those who call themselves "agnostics" have been bamboozled the same way Huxley was. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism because it is atheism.

So, now that both have been properly defined and put into perspective, the debate is now Atheism vs Atheism. One cannot help but chuckle and give a small joke about who the victor will be. You may as well try telling yourself to not tell you what to do.

megamanXplosion wrote:

Atheism vs Atheism.

So what type of atheist is someone who deny's the existence of any other God but their own ? Does this mean everyone is an atheist except for Pantheists ?

BDV wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:

Atheism vs Atheism.

So what type of atheist is someone who deny's the existence of any other God but their own ? Does this mean everyone is an atheist except for Pantheists ?

That person is a deist (a subcategory of theism), not an atheist.

Yeah, the atheists of the world want to take control of all the philosophical stances outside theism...as though they have the divine right to do so.

It is blather.

Atheism has an etymology...which includes the Greek "a" attached to "theism."

Big goddam deal!

It has a meaning...and it is understood by the public in a particular way. The dictionary that happens to be open on my desk at the moment (Webster's New Collegiate) defines atheist thusly: One who denies the existence of God.

Now I am not going to insist that this the only definition...but I am going to insist that it is disingenuous of atheists to essentially spout the agnostic position...and then still insist on being called atheists. And I sure as hell am going to insist that I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and I do not "believe" in any gods.

If you have something to say on the matter...say it. Or go post in one of the movie threads. You can try your big deal act out on those good folk.

No a deist is someone who rejects organised religion and uses common sense to make his/her decisions

timberlandko wrote:

First, welcome to A2K.

OK- that's outta the way, now on to business.

You've demonstrated what you believe relevant to the matter at discussion, but apart from a bit of sophistry (rather facile, btw; decent job) and some semantical wiggling, you've demonstrated nothing else beyond arrogant supposition.

Your "welcome" is insincere and contradicts your message.

As such, I chuck it into the trash bin with other such sayings like loving one's enemies.

Regardless, you have made the claim that I have a belief on uncertain and shaky grounds that I have shown unwarranted importance for out of overbearing pride.

That is wrong.

You have confused confidence with arrogance

and you have confused historical facts with suppositions.

If people want to debate Positive Atheism vs Negative Atheism then they can. That debate would be logical. I was merely making the point that the current topic of debate unknowingly pitted negative atheists against other negative atheists, which is illogical.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah, the atheists of the world want to take control of all the philosophical stances outside theism...as though they have the divine right to do so.

It is blather.

On the contrary, it is the agnostics that want to take control of the negative atheist philosophies. The definition of atheism I gave is the same as it was hundreds of years ago and agnosticism is a recent term. Any attempt to switch the timelines around will only make you look foolish. So, I must pose your question towards you: what divine right do you have to change the definition? The answer: none.

Quote:

Atheism has an etymology...which includes the Greek "a" attached to "theism."

Big goddam deal!

Historical facts... bleh, big goddamn deal! If you cannot see the foolishness of your own posts then you are a lost cause.

Quote:

It has a meaning...and it is understood by the public in a particular way. The dictionary that happens to be open on my desk at the moment (Webster's New Collegiate) defines atheist thusly: One who denies the existence of God.

Using the dictionary to support a redefinition of a term is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. According to your logic one could also use the American Heritage Dictionary and say that atheists are also defined as "immoral." Furthermore, your appeal to popularity is also a logical fallacy. According to that logic the popular opinion of the south meant that blacks are property and not human beings. One can also use the American Heritage Dictionary for "atheist" to again show why appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. You may want to sharpen up your debating skills because your words are hurting your position more than mine.

Quote:

Now I am not going to insist that this the only definition...but I am going to insist that it is disingenuous of atheists to essentially spout the agnostic position...and then still insist on being called atheists. And I sure as hell am going to insist that I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and I do not "believe" in any gods.

One can choose the path of ignorance if that is what one wills. However, I would question how wise such a decision would be.

Quote:

If you have something to say on the matter...say it. Or go post in one of the movie threads. You can try your big deal act out on those good folk.

I have said what I wanted to say. Furthermore, you have no authority on what I do on these forums so quit pretending like you do.

Nonsense - my extension of welcome is quite sincere; the more members here the merrier, and welcoming you then challenging your assertions in no way are contradictory.

Quote:

As such, I chuck it into the trash bin with other such sayings like loving one's enemies.

Establish your credentials in whatever manner you find fitting.

Quote:

You have confused confidence with arrogance

One of us has - but not the one sitting at my keyboard.

Quote:

and you have confused historical facts with suppositions.

Just to which exact historical facts do you refer, and where in what you wrote are they?

Quote:

If people want to debate Positive Atheism vs Negative Atheism then they can. That debate would be logical. I was merely making the point that the current topic of debate unknowingly pitted negative atheists against other negative atheists, which is illogical.

I submit you again descend into sophistry - the concepts of "positive" and "negative" atheism are but arbitrary constructs, terminological conventions you find pleasing and convenient to the argument you attempt thereby to develop.

One who is an atheist is one who does not believe in a god or gods, and a subset - perhaps even a statistically significant majority - of atheists believe there to be no god or gods. There is quantifiable distinction there, yes. In regard to the existence of a god or gods, an athiest is "closed-minded" - by definition - that one's mind is made up.

One who is a theist believes there to be a god or gods - nothing there from which to distinguish. A theist is in that regard Closed Minded just as is the atheist, simply oppositely.

One who is an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or gods; that one is of open mind on the matter, unconvinced by argument from either camp, but willing, able, and ready to make a decision and join either camp in the event unambiguous evidence be provided - one way or the other. An agnostic is open minded as pertains to the existence of a god or gods.

And of course you can provide us with a citation for the term "negative atheist" that predates Huxley's coining of the term "agnostic"...right?????

Otherwise you are going to look foolish.

The dictionary that happens to be open on my desk at the moment (Webster's New Collegiate) defines atheist thusly: One who denies the existence of God.

Suppressed?

You used it incorrectly.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The dictionary that happens to be open on my desk at the moment (Webster's New Collegiate) defines atheist thusly: One who denies the existence of God.

I'd get a new dictionary Frank.

That one seems to presuppose the existence of one specific "God" and defines atheists as those who deny He exists, which is, at best, not a complete definition. Polytheists would fit this definition, and arguably Muslims too.