• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Agnostic VS Atheist

cottage

Well-Known Member
The same goes for defining atheist, according to the OP. You either reject the proposition, or you don't. If you don't reject the proposition, you're not an atheist. All the reasoning in the world (whatever lead one to his or her rejection) isn't part of the definition.

That's not agnosticism.

But I don't reject the proposition! So how does that make me not an atheist? (!) And what isn't agnosticism? :confused:
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
But I don't reject the proposition! So how does that make me not an atheist? (!)
So? It's not about you. We're just defining atheism, preferably per the OP.

And what isn't agnosticism? :confused:
The definition given of atheism doesn't also define agnosticism. It indicates a difference between them.

Now I really don’t want to keep ramming this down your throat because we all make mistakes, in your case the statement above (in red), which is actually untrue, but it is the fact that you accused me of changing or altering what you actually said that I’m finding difficult to forgive.
And you made no distinction between entities and ontological concepts; you used the term ‘all’!
I expressed an attitude in the part in red. If you want to properly turn what I said around into a statement about "'all' things", you might include the word "let": "let all things be uncertain," that would work --but why you'd want to do that, I don't know, and I don't care; it just diverts from what was said, and derails the thread.

Also you might care to explain what you mean by agnostics ‘assessing truth-value’, since you’ve already said: “if you want to "know what counts as valid," look to the atheist or the theist. That's their domain.”
To assess "truth" itself, as a topic.
 
Last edited:

cottage

Well-Known Member
So? It's not about you. We're just defining atheism, preferably per the OP.

It isn’t about me, and your answer didn’t make any sense. If an atheist (any atheist) doesn’t reject the proposition how does that make the person ‘not an atheist’? I'm sorry but I can't make head nor tail of what you're arguing.

But anyway look at the third paragraph in the OP, and then explain how is that so very different to agnosticism?


The definition given of atheism doesn't also define agnosticism. It indicates a difference between them.

Just a moment’s thought shows that is quite absurd to speak of atheism defining or not defining agnosticism when my argument is that agnosticism is irrelevant to the dispute between theism and atheism. And the ‘difference between them’ is merely a badge for those who can’t bring themselves to commit unconditionally to god belief, nor to deny it outright, but hope to give an impression of reasonableness in their arguments. Agnosticism introduces nothing to the debate that cannot be had from non-partisan, reasoned argument; and it is also a fact that the stated principle of agnosticism (the unknowable supposed truths of theism) is already implied in core atheism. If Huxley’s principle were to be erased from all human memory, or had it never existed in the first place, it would make not a scrap of difference to the religious hypothesis as we find it today or indeed as was prior to his coining the term.


I expressed an attitude in the part in red. If you want to properly turn what I said around into a statement about "'all' things", you might include the word "let": "let all things be uncertain," that would work --but why you'd want to do that, I don't know, and I don't care; it just diverts from what was said, and derails the thread.

I expressed an attitude in the part in red. If you want to properly turn what I said around into a statement about "'all' things", you might include the word "let": "let all things be uncertain," that would work --but why you'd want to do that, I don't know, and I don't care; it just diverts from what was said, and derails the thread.

I cannot believe what I’ve just read! That explanation is laughable and thoroughly disingenuous. You made an unambiguous statement: “To do that, it affirms the uncertainty of all things”. ‘Affirms’ means to state as a fact, to declare positively and strongly as a judgement or decree. And yet again we see an attempt to weasel out of the mistake – and this is simply astonishing – by suggesting that your grand and explicit pronouncement was somehow attributable to me! You have the barefaced cheek to suggest that I might ‘properly turn round’ what you’ve said by making an addition to the statement; and, then you even have the gall to question why I might want to do what you’ve implied! I’m beginning to form a sneaking admiration for your creative mendacity. :D:D:D:D


To assess "truth" itself, as a topic.

So if atheism and theism ‘know what counts as valid’, as you’ve stated, then why the need for agnosticism to be ‘assessing truth value’? I’ve no idea what your argument is but it seems to be rather muddled.
 

Kemble

Active Member
Haven't read the rest of the thread, but to boil it down quickly: the evidence for a God is so overwhelmingly low that it is safe to say with certain he/she/it doesn't exist; hence atheism on that issue. It still doesn't betray the realization that knowledge is always probabilistic and approximate, so the atheist on the God issue is still an honest agnostic.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Aren't people who call themselves "agnostic," generally just spineless weasels who, by not picking a side, end up annoying the crap out of everyone?
LOL, no, those who are trying to hijack and redefine agnosticism are spineless weasels! :p
 
Top