PureX
Veteran Member
How is that different from what I said. C'mon!You have the terminology wrong.
Agnosticism is the position that *knowledge* (gnosis) is impossible in this area.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How is that different from what I said. C'mon!You have the terminology wrong.
Agnosticism is the position that *knowledge* (gnosis) is impossible in this area.
This is a problem with how you see things.I've never seen an honest Atheist...
I agree. It's why I started this thread. I wanted to make atheists face the difference between atheism, and agnosticism, and clarify why, logically, they chose atheism when they could simply have remained agnostic.
Actually, there is only one "type of atheist". And that is the type that counter-claims that no gods exist. There are, however, a lot of different people making that counter claim for a lot of different reasons, and some of them are very clear and committed to their claims, while others are not very clear or committed to them. Atheism is not defined by these people. Atheism is one of three possible responses to the theist truth claim. Nothing more, and nothing less. How we each as individuals relate ourselves to this one particular response is as varied and dynamic as we are. But the response, itself, remains the same, and intact.
I like the introduction of all these label variants because they put the variations back on the people, instead of muddying up and confusing the atheist counter response to the theist truth claim. I don't like "strong" and "weak" atheist assertions because they are misleading terms and they try to divide the atheist counter-claim based on personalities rather than content.
Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted. The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted. The content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination, and therefor to make any assertion. There is no need for anyone's "beliefs" to be imposed on the content. The content of each position stands on it's own.Why do you want to eliminate the defining aspect of the position? The lack of belief?
I've never seen an honest Atheist - for example, I've never seen myself an atheists that properly analyzes arguments for or against God. So this is my conclusion, that you guys over all are dishonest.
Thats not a fair statement Link. There are many honest atheists. Like in all theologies, and all other kind of "ogies" and "Isms", there are dishonest persons, but generalising dishonesty to all of any group or definition is bigotry.
I would like to ask you not to do that, but its your prerogative.
Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted. The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted. The content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination. There is not need for anyone's "beliefs" to be imposed on the content. The content of each position stands on it's own.
It has nothing to do with the theist truth claim (God/gods exist). Which is what theism is all about.Belief has nothing to do with theism?
Without the theist truth claim, there is no theism by any other definition.Theism is not the claim. I mean, I will accept that theism exists. The claim is: God/gods exist. This one I will not accept.
How is that different from what I said. C'mon!
I start from the baseline premise that it is not possible for a human being to determine the nature or even the existence of 'God'.
Well, that's just silly. Words have to mean something to mean something. They can't just mean anything or they don't mean anything at all.
It has nothing to do with the theist truth claim (God/gods exist). Which is what theism is all about.
Without the theist truth claim, there is no theism by any other definition.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
Theism is the claim.
What you or anyone believes about the claim is irrelevant to the fact of the claim itself: ... that the claim stands before you.
I think you should ask yourself why it's so important to you that you drag people's beliefs into what is otherwise a simple, clear, proposition. Why can't you just face the proposition, and respond to it?
... Most, on the other hand, are unfalsifiable, so it's back to have we got good reason to take them seriously? If the answer is no, then not believing it is rational even though it's impossible to know for sure.
...
Language does not determine logic. In fact, the way people use words is often very illogical, and even meant to be. Which is why it's so important that in a conversation such as this, we stay as clear and concise as possible, and not get all caught up in personal beliefs and opinions and contexts, and all that. Theism is a truth claim. Atheism is the counter claim. And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination. We humans, on the other hand, are all over the place and often in ten places at once. We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.And I am simply pointing out that your definitions are NOT how the language is being used by the people you claim have those positions.
Language does not determine logic. In fact, the way people use words is often very illogical, and even meant to be. Which is why it's so important that in a conversation such as this, we stay as clear and concise as possible, and not get all caught up in personal beliefs and opinions and contexts, and all that. Theism is a truth claim. Atheism is the counter claim. And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination. We humans, on the other hand, are all over the place and often in ten places at once. We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.
But the theist believes (accepts, asserts) the claim to be true. The claim is: God/gods exist . The theist does believe this is true.It has nothing to do with the theist truth claim (God/gods exist). Which is what theism is all about.
Without the theist truth claim, there is no theism by any other definition.
I cannot determine the nature or existence of infinity, and yet I can still perceive it as an ideal, even if a profoundly mysterious one.An interesting contrast that I noticed when someone quoted the OP:
I am a theist, and I do not accept or assert that God/gods exist as a truth claim. Which is why what I believe or don't believe does not and should not define theism.But the theist believes (accepts, asserts) the claim to be true.
Language does not determine logic.
Theism is a truth claim.
Atheism is the counter claim.
And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination.
We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.
Unexplained logic is worthless to anyone but ourselves. So I explain the logic of my reasoning. And that's all I am asking of the atheists, here. I don't own any particular logic, and neither does anyone else.So you don't use your understanding of logic? If not, please explain?