Atheists Admit Defeat - Video Atheists don't want you to see

[VaultZero4Me]

You are missing my point. Anyone can find something at Wikipedia that suits their own personal definition. I can go and change a definition, and then subsequently cite my own definition. I am not saying you are dishonest, I am saying that Wikipedia is not the best unbiased source of data.

So your counter argument is that his source is unreliable? Have you not used wiki at all as a source?

If so, and I believe you have, at which point is it not reliable?

Self-devised definitions seems to be more down your alley, considering your definition of atheism disagrees with the dictionary AND the AA's own definition. Words have meaning, Eric. You explain your beliefs, but then you call them something else. I do not define Catholicism. My beliefs are Catholic in the sense that I adhere to THEIR stated beliefs as a system or set of principles. While atheism does not have a center of gravity, per sec, there are a set of defining principles that the individual does not set himself. Atheism is the active disbelief in divine beings. Simple as that. Withholding belief is not actively disbelieving.

1.Many dictionaries list “lack of belief†or not affirming the belief in god(s).
2.The AA is a source for the AA, therefore it is not useful in this discussion individually. Your task would be to provide a majority of atheists. Not just a small sample of 2,500.
3.Actively disbelieving in anything is untenable, and imo that is why many people hold atheism to that standard and fail to do so with any other non-belief.

Is it just impossible to provide a reason why it should be held to this standard? Maybe the reason does not exist? Can we finally just move beyond the assertion that “atheism is the active disbelief in divine beings.†and start providing the reasoning behind holding atheism to that standard while not being consistent with other non-beliefs?

I prefer not to spin our wheels.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The definition of doctrine applies to this group of atheists. There doesn't have to be a set number of people who hold these "code of beliefs", only that there are some who do.

Therefore the OP is false ("There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions.)

Your reasoning is just false.

Because that doctrine applies to that group of individuals and them alone, it cannot be the doctrine of atheism.

For instance, the catholic church holds many doctrines. Some are the doctrines of christianity (Christ was God, he died for mans sins, and rose from the grave), and some are just the doctrine of the Catholic church. These doctrines are not shared across the spectrum of Christianity.

That makes those doctrines Catholic.

The same here. Those doctrines are the AA's, and until you provide any evidence that they are shared across the spectrum and taught by the majority of atheists, it is not an atheistic doctrine.

 

[dadof10]

A doctrine is a body of teachings. You have yet to show a body of teachings which are universal to atheism. You provided the AA. That is all.

I am missing no relevant points. All I have to show to debunk the OP is that an "atheistic doctrine" exists. That's it. I don't have to prove it's accepted by all atheists, I don't have to accept your analogies concerning Buddism or whatever. All I have to prove is codified propositions which, I have demonstrated and you have accepted, do exist.

The OP is "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

The definition of Doctrine is this: "Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism."

Nowhere within this definition is there a term even akin to "universal acceptance".

There is a group of people who have codified atheism with stated propositions, therefore there exists atheistic doctrine.

 

[dadof10]

Those doctrines are the AA's, and until you provide any evidence that they are shared across the spectrum and taught by the majority of atheists, it is not an atheistic doctrine.

You said in your last post this:

You have yet to show a body of teachings which are universal to atheism

Which is it? Does doctrine have to be held by the majority or does it have to be universally held?

I forsee more arguing about the definition of the word "universally".

Go ahead. I'm done with this silliness. The OP has been proved false.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

A doctrine is a body of teachings. You have yet to show a body of teachings which are universal to atheism. You provided the AA. That is all.

I am missing no relevant points. All I have to show to debunk the OP is that an "atheistic doctrine" exists. That's it. I don't have to prove it's accepted by all atheists, I don't have to accept your analogies concerning Buddism or whatever. All I have to prove is codified propositions which, I have demonstrated and you have accepted, do exist.

The OP is "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

The definition of Doctrine is this: "Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism."

Nowhere within this definition is there a term even akin to "universal acceptance".

There is a group of people who have codified atheism with stated propositions, therefore there exists atheistic doctrine.

You have not provided a document listing a teaching taught within atheism, which was what the op was concerned with.

You provided a document that is taught and stated as doctrine for a small group of atheists.

What you are doing would be the same as saying that the catholic doctrine which states that the Church is the authority on scripture is a Christian doctrine.

It is a catholic doctrine, and the Catholic church being part of christianity, does not make that particular doctrine to be a Christian doctrine.

Your fallacy still stands as pointed out earlier.

If you statement was "There are atheist organizations that hold doctrines." Your case would be supported.

But your point was to invalidate:

The OP is "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

if the op was phrased "There is no such thing as a doctrine held by an atheist."

Your AA point would be valid.

It was not the op, therefore your point is invalid.

Shall we continue this dance?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Those doctrines are the AA's, and until you provide any evidence that they are shared across the spectrum and taught by the majority of atheists, it is not an atheistic doctrine.

You said in your last post this:

You have yet to show a body of teachings which are universal to atheism

Which is it? Does doctrine have to be held by the majority or does it have to be universally held?

I forsee more arguing about the definition of the word "universally".

Go ahead. I'm done with this silliness. The OP has been proved false.

You apparently miss the forest over the tree in front of you.

Are you going to play word games? I can be a christian and follow doctrine. I do not have to teach doctrine or discuss it with others.

The teaching can be universally taught, but the followers do not all have to teach.

Are all Christians pastors and teachers on Christian doctrines?

In fact, I would gather that not all that label themselves christians follow every christian doctrine. Therefore I can not say that all Christians follow or teach every Christian doctrine, yet the doctrines are universal.

You could get into the debate if they are actually Christians, and if they are not following established doctrine than there would be an argument, but the debate would be on their Christianity, not if the doctrine was no longer universal to Christianity.

Does that make sense to you?

It is childish to wave your hands at some little perceived insignificant inconsistency, and then try to relate that to somehow diminishing the entire debate, while finally throwing up your hands and saying "I tire of this. I win, goodbye."

If that is your idea of a logical debate, than it was over before it began.

Refer back to a post where I pointed out an inconsistency on another thread with francis. I did not say "You are wrong because you said a, then said b."

I merely asked him to explain it so I could understand it as a typo, or hopefully learn more about his perspective and argument. For all I knew, the inconsistency could exist entirely in my view, and he could explain it for me. That is a rational debate. The other way is merely an attempt to debunk through means outside the true argument.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

atheism - the lack of faith in God, god, or gods.

If you do not accept that then you are forced to answer how someone can not believe in aliens, yet not hold the untennable position that they are 100% sure aliens do not exist.

explain why this particular non-belief has to be defended more than the non-belief in anything else.

Let me make this as succinct as possible, since you are going off on a tangeant again...

You say atheism = lack of faith in gods/god.

Does the word "agnostic" mean the same thing as "atheism"?

When you see the difference between these two words, you will begin to comprehend what I am saying - I hope. For IF atheism and agnosticism have different meanings, your definition of atheism is inadequate and incorrect, since agnostics ALSO have lack faith in god/gods...!

I ask you to sit back and think about this for a minute before firing off another post. The difference between the two words - rather than being the same meaning - clearly points out the failure of your point.

I have tried mightily to make this understood by my atheist interlocuters. If they refuse to see that difference by now, then further conversation is just white noise and has no hope of reaching the atheist's mind.

Regards

Agnostic does not mean lack of belief.

Agnostic means that you do not believe a god would be knowable, therefore unable to be evidentually supported or refuted.

Agnostic means that you consider it a non issue entirely one way or the other. That is entirely different than not believing, and is crucial for you to understand that difference.

Atheism takes the position that in order to believe, evidence should be provided and weighted (as with any belief). Atheists do not find the evidence sufficient, therefore fall back on not believing as with any system that is unsupported.

Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

There is a real difference in the position that you do not find it possible support or refute an area of knowledge, and not believing the affirmation of belief.

Once you understand the real difference in there we can move on.

 

[dadof10]

Are you going to play word games?

That's all this thread has become. All we do is define words, go around in circles and try to disparage and demean each other, while trying to stay within the TOS. I'm tired of it and don't have the time.

You win. The OP stands simply because an atheist wrote it. There you go...No waving of hands or anything else.

 

[wavy]

I tried to be patient with you, francis. This is my final response to you about this. I'm really annoyed, and this is becoming ridiculous. You may take the last word. I'm content to let the reader decide.

You are missing my point. Anyone can find something at Wikipedia that suits their own personal definition. I can go and change a definition, and then subsequently cite my own definition. I am not saying you are dishonest, I am saying that Wikipedia is not the best unbiased source of data.

Response:

Wikipedia quotes a variety of sources and opinions which reflected my point (that atheism/agnosticism isn't sharply defined since agnostics can also be called atheists). Point blank.

Self-devised definitions seems to be more down your alley, considering your definition of atheism disagrees with the dictionary AND the AA's own definition. Words have meaning, Eric. You explain your beliefs, but then you call them something else. I do not define Catholicism. My beliefs are Catholic in the sense that I adhere to THEIR stated beliefs as a system or set of principles. While atheism does not have a center of gravity, per sec, there are a set of defining principles that the individual does not set himself. Atheism is the active disbelief in divine beings. Simple as that. Withholding belief is not actively disbelieving.

No. I have not disagreed with the dictionary. The AA is irrelevant. Their opinions only apply to their organization, not atheism in general.

Here are definitions taken from different dictionaries at dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
--Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006.

I have acknowledged both of these definitions several times. For example (for definition 2):

A lack of belief in gods is really the same thing as saying 'I don't believe god/s exist'. If you believe god/s don't exist, you lack belief in them (apparently). That may dispel much of the confusion here. However, lack of belief in gods, or the belief that they do not exist should not be confused with the absolute assertion that they do not, i.e., saying 'God's existence is false' or 'God does not exist'.

And here (definition 1):

In any event, I'm 'firmly convinced' [i.e., have a belief] that God does not exist because I see no reason to believe that he does

I could continue quoting myself but that's enough for now. Here are other definitions from dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
--WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

See especially, def. 2 here, which is what I've been saying the whole time (though mysteriously and perhaps conveniently ignored), and I've even harmonized it with the other definitions (see my quote in blue above for definition 2). Now, how did you define atheists? I quote:

Atheism PROPERLY defined is the knowledge of a lack of divinity.

Where is this definition found for atheism in general?

Nowhere.

How did you qualify this 'definition'? By saying atheism is inherently illogical because its 'doctrine' is an appeal to ignorance. I quote from one of your post (directed towards me):

Your entire argument is based upon a logical fallacy...Argument from ignorance.

...and from another post to Vault:

However, to make the statement that 'God does not exist" based on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy: Argument from ignornance.

So you're claiming atheists in general are those who claim that 'God does not exist' (an absolute assertion) because we don't find evidence, which, if it were true, would be an appeal to ignorance. However, that atheists are generally defined as those who say 'God does not exist' (an absolute assertion) is your own made up definition. Where is this general definition?

Nowhere.

You quoted absolutely nothing to support that claim, while I have shown that my definition of atheism is found in the dictionary. Three definitions were distinguished above from dictionary.com and I've shown you where I have concurred with each of them. I told you that I don't believe in gods, or believe there are no gods, and that this is the same as lacking belief in them. If you don't have a belief in them, then you lack belief in them. 'Lack' is an antonym of 'have', and it doesn't matter whether that disbelief is 'active' or based upon ignorance. The distinction is moot. Why? Because for non-belief in gods to be 'active', we must be aware of actual belief in gods and reject the notion. I do reject the notion of belief in gods. Why? Because I don't see the evidence.

You claim that saying we don't see the evidence and therefore don't believe is really agnosticism, that agnostics see the evidence and refuse to believe, not atheists. You haven't explained why atheists can't examine the 'evidence' for gods and reject it (which we do). I quote:

It sounds to me that you are agnostic, that you do not agree with the evidence provided.

What dictionary or other authoritative source did you use to make this a mutually exclusive distinction between atheists and agnostics?

None.

From where did you draw this definition of agnostics to the exclusion of atheists?

Nowhere.

Lack of belief IS different than the conviction of non-existence.

This has been dealt with. I see what you're doing. You're making a distinction between the two because you believe the former is inactive and the latter is active. Both are not exclusive (see harmonization above), but even acknowledging your distinction it doesn't matter. Why is my disbelief 'active'? Because when I'm told gods exist, I fail to see the evidence and therefore actively reject the notion. Why do I say I actively believe they do not exist? Because they've left behind no evidence. I also actively disbelieve in ghosts when confronted with the notion of their existence. Why? Because they've left behind no evidence with which I would concede their existence.

Active or inactive (this distinction is a tangent anyway), both are based on lack of evidence...evidence which needs to be supplied by theists which is why you retain the burden of proof.

A lack of belief is properly defined as agnosticism.

atheism-
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
--WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

The line is not as distinctive as you thought. The main distinction is that agnostics think it is impossible to know, or suspend a verdict, or are neutral (click). However, in suspending judgment, they do lack belief and are therefore a form of atheism (see definition above and wiki-article).

The doubter withholds an active "no" to the question. Otherwise, atheism and agnosticism would have identical meanings. They don't, Eric, despite your continued attempt to toss out lists of logical fallacies without seeing my point...

I never claimed the meanings were identical. Only that the distinction is not always clear. This is a straw man.

On the other hand, where is the support for your claim that atheism is 'properly defined' as the 'knowledge' of no deities (i.e., stating absolutely that 'God does not exist') and that if an atheist simply finds no evidence and he rejects the notion of their existence that he's really an agnostic?

You have none.

Another ad hominem. Again, in your rush to judgment and to make another condescending statement, you miss the point... I suppose you need to feel good about yourself by putting the other person down. How sad.

Ad hominem is not to be confused with negative criticism. Ad hominem is an attack on your opponents character in order to avoid addressing their argument. Since I addressed your argument (whether you disagree with it or not), I'm not guilty of ad hominem. If you confuse negative criticism with ad hominem, then you don't know what it is.

It would be much better if you could distance yourself from such emotional statements when debating.

I said the statement was 'daft', and I meant it. However, I also admitted that I misunderstood you in my following post, apologized, and re-addressed it. But it appears you didn't realize that I misunderstood it and attempted to address my inadvertant straw man response anyway with the following:

All opinions are active, but they are not active in the sense of DECIDING one way or the other. I can have an opinion of not being sure... Hence, the difference of the definitions of agnosticism and atheism...

In not realizing my misunderstanding and in not reading my following post where I corrected it, you've addressed the wrong remarks. But where did you support your claims here anyway?

You didn't.

Of course, and I already said that we don't have absolute knowledge! Maybe you skipped over that part of my post while thinking of witty things to say...

Honestly I don't remember you saying that we don't have absolute knowledge. But that isn't the point. The point was that you accused atheists of claiming absolute knowledge by equivocating with 'knowledge' and 'conviction'. My point was that just because we're pretty sure (or have a 'firm conviction') that deities do not exist doesn't mean we claim to 'know' with absolute certainty. 'Knowledge' and 'conviction' are not the same thing. 'God's existence is false' (a statement of knowledge/certainty) is different from saying 'I believe God does not exist' (a conviction).

Only with the fomer can you accuse atheism of an appeal to ignorance.

The difference I have been trying to state - and which you seem to refuse to understand - is that a person can have the opinion of uncertainty.

You haven't made that in the least bit clear if that is what you've been trying to say. And it doesn't matter anyway because it's wrong. 'Uncertainty' is not an 'opinion'.

Having a conviction or knowing something to be true is NOT one of uncertainty.

Notice the red highlight above. You're equivocating with 'conviction' and 'knowledge' again and building yet another straw man. I never said I was uncertain...just that I don't claim to be certain 100%. Big difference. That does not make me 'agnostic' (who claim we can't know, but still lack belief like an atheist).

It is an active opinion, a deciding between two polar opposites. Do you belief in God? There are three answers. Yes. No. I am not sure.

Saying 'no' does not mean you claim absolute 'knowledge/certainty', which is what you're trying to foist into what atheists are saying: that answering 'no' is a logical fallacy, namely an appeal to ignorance. This has been addressed. A belief/conviction is not the same thing as a dogmatic assertion. This is very simple:

Belief: 'I don't believe gods exist' or 'I believe gods don't exist'.
Reason for belief: no evidence.

Dogmatic assertion: 'Gods do not exist' or 'God's existence is false'.
Reason for dogmatic assertion: no evidence (or alternatively, another absolute claim to knowledge like 'only the natural exists').

One is a legitimate opinion (the first one). The other is an appeal to ignorance. You keep trying to foist atheism into the second category because you think both are saying the same thing, hence your equivocation of 'knowledge' and 'conviction'. No matter how much you equivocate these terms, they are not the same and the conclusions you draw from that equivocation will remain false as long as you maintain it.

As for agnostics, they do not believe in God. Either you believe in God or you don't. You can be generally uncertain of God's existence or claim it's impossible to know (which is saying something different), but ambivalence or noncommittment is still a 'lack of belief'. Anything less than 'belief' is a lack of it, whether it's uncertainty or rejection of belief once initiated.

Please. Try to wrap your mind around this concept, as I tire of explaining it over and over.

Irrelevant insults.

What fallacy? That no one can have absolute knowledge? I never said you did, so I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Try reading what I actually write. Is this another ramble so you can conjure up another "fallacy" again?

Notice the red highlight above. You might try the same.

Your following statement is what I said was a fallacy:

If I knew something, I have a firm conviction of it, and vice versus... [sic]

This fallacy is called a commutation of conditionals. One doesn't automatically assume the other. If you say you know something, your conviction is obviously assumed to be 100% whether you really know or claim to know. But having a conviction does not automatically mean that you know (or claim to know) something. You say it's 'vice versus [sic]'. It is not. And the reason I pointed this out is not because I think you're claiming we can have absolute knowledge, but because you were trying to say that because atheists have a conviction (i.e., that gods do not exist) that means that we also claim absolute knowledge of the matter (i.e., that the existence of God is positively false). This is the basis of your fallacy charge (appeal to ignorance). But it is not an appeal to ignorance because you have not noticed the distinction between a belief/conviction and a dogmatic, positive assertion. This is easy to illustrate:

Man A: 'I believe my daughter is in school and not truant with boys.' (not absolute)

Man B: 'I know my daughter is in school and not truant with boys.' (absolute)

This is not the same thing. You seem to notice this but don't apply it consistently. You admitted that we don't have absolute knowledge. If you believe this, that means that whatever you have a conviction of (whether it be God's existence or something else), you understand that believing something is not saying 'I know'. And yet, when atheists say we have the conviction that God does not exist, you interpret that as claiming 'God does not exist', which is an absolute claim based on ignorance and therefore a fallacy.

I quote:

Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief in god/gods. Thus, the former is a conviction of no gods exist, the later is a firm conviction of gods/god existing...However, to make the statement that 'God does not exist" based on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy

If atheism is the opposite of theism (and this is true, as we both agree), than 'God does exist' (an absolute assertion) is the anithesis of 'God does not exist' (absolute assertion). To say 'God does exist' is an absolute claim...in other words, knowledge which you admitted that we don't have, and as a claim is equally fallacious as 'God does not exist'. Both are appeals to ignorance: the former in the form of claiming something is true because of ignorance and the latter in the form of saying something isn't true because of ignorance.

I've continuously pointed out the distinction between saying 'God does not exist' (claim to absolute knowledge) and 'I don't believe God exists' (a conviction). So if you believe atheism is the opposite of theism, which you say is belief in or conviction of gods existing without claiming absolute knowledge, then atheism is the belief or conviction that gods don't exist...without claiming absolute knowledge. That means it's not an appeal to ignorance if it bases this conviction off of a lack of evidence, because only with an absolute statement ('Gods do not exist') is this an appeal to ignorance. By your own logic, atheism is not fallacious.

This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

No one has said that "knowing something" means it is 100% absolute. That is your invention to redirect the conversation into senseless rambling.

Please refer above for what I meant concerning the equivocation of 'knowledge' and 'conviction' and the fallacy that accompanied it (i.e., 'knowledge is conviction and vice versa').

Good for you, you found the google site that lists logical fallacies.

Irrelevant insult and one of the reasons I'm going to ignore you after this post like I did with 'dadof10'. You guys just want to 'get back' at me by parroting the things I've said to you two. Such a childish game.

Now, go ahead and read the one for "red herring". Or "non-sequitar". I never said that knowing something meant someone did not have ANY doubts or was absolutely certain of their position.

If that's true, then your fallacy charge is negated. Because only with an absolute assertion based on a lack of evidence (i.e., 'God does not exist because there's no evidence') can there be an appeal to ignorance. But I never made that claim. At the beginning of this whole dialogue I am the one who first pointed that out. This is from page 1:

[Saying]' There is no god' is a strictly philosophical fallacious position to take

No, you haven't. All you said was "I don't accept the evidence". That is not a reason that explains how one concludes there is not divine being.

The best one could say, logically, is that the evidence does not convince me of God's existence, I remain in doubt".

Again, you are basing your "reasoning" on a logical fallacy of "argument by ignorance". And yet again, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

False, false, false. I don't believe in God because I don't accept the evidence. I did *not* say--repeat: I positively, absolutely, definitely, certainly, did *not* say that 'There is no god because there is no evidence'.

I said I don't believe there is a god. There. Is. A. Difference. Please refer to all of the above I've said thus far.

Now, if you were to say "I don't believe in God because of evil in the world", we might have something to discuss. That would be a positive reason for denying God's existence based on supposed knowledge of what God would do in a situation. But "I don't accept the evidence" is a logical fallacy.

Dealt with more than once, and not starting with this post either. Again, you're confusing the claim 'There is no god'/'God does not exist' with the belief that gods do not exist. Refer to illustration regarding Man A's belief about his daughter and Man B's absolute claim to know what's going on with his daughter.

A wonderful non-sequitar, because that is not what I compared and contrasted. Throw something that makes sense. Your first statement is fine. The second one makes no sense. No one is asking you to predict the future. And we all know you cannot disprove God, which makes the whole idea illogical.

i) You should learn to use (and spell) non-sequitur correctly.

ii) Whether my analogy made reference to the future is irrelevant. It contrasted belief and an assertion of certainty, and that's enough. I already constructed another analogy which is not based on predicting the future that conveys the same point. That's no problem (see A/B above).

iii) If we 'all know' that God cannot be disproved (please tell that to 'dad'of10') then atheists do not bear the burden of proof and have nothing to defend, since we only believe God does not exists. We don't claim it in an absolute way (which would need a defense). This has been your straw man from the beginning to the present. Page 1:

How about "there is no God"...? Isn't that the definition of atheism?

No. It isn't. 'There is no god' is an absolute claim. Some atheists might make it, but it does not apply in general. Those who do make it have appealed to ignorance. But atheism is not defined by that claim.

Again, you're confusing claiming 'There is no god' (a positive assertion) with believing that there is no god. Both deal with being unconvinced of the evidence...but only one is fallacious. The one that is fallacious does not apply generally to atheism. Here is another example of you foisting your own definitions of what you want atheism to be as opposed to what it is:

I said:

Now if you're asking me to 'disprove' God's existence, that's another matter and a request that's futile because I cannot disprove God's existence. That would be trying to prove a universal/infinite negative (how many times do I need to repeat this?).

You replied:

This VERY THING is WHY you cannot BE an atheist by definition. Unfortunately, this has escaped your comprehension...One cannot be an atheist AND logical at the same time. It is a belief in something that is "unprovable", as you said!

This argument would certainly be true if atheists claimed 'There is no god'...but that absolute assertion does not--does not, does not, does not-- define atheism. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in gods, whether this be based on incognizance of the concept of God or conscious, active rejection of the concept. You seem to think conscious, active rejection of the notion is equivalent to the absolute assertion 'God does not exist'. That's false, and I've demonstrated that ad nauseum because you keep making the same mistake ad nauseum.

After pointing this out, you've now tried to make an arbitrary distinction between atheists and agnostics by saying that agnosticism is being unconvinced of the evidence. That's true...but not to the exclusion of atheists. Atheists are also unconvinced (or else why would they reject the hypothesis of God?). But they believe there is no God with some degree of probable certainty. Agnostics say they can't know whether he exists. But both fall under 'lack of belief' because, as you might have guessed, neither one believes.

Your strawman is that you insert words that I never used. Check your parenthesied word. Absolutely. When did I say that? I even denied that one could know anything absolutely, except their own existence. Now, you build strawmen and accuse me??? Oh, the irony...

I did not say that you believe we can have absolute knowledge. I said that you're accusing atheists of making that claim about the non-existence of God. This all goes back to your equivocation of 'knowledge' and 'conviction', the basis of your fallacy charge (appeal to ignorance).

Let me point this out again. I've been doing it this whole post and passim other posts.

A: 'God does not exist'
B: 'I believe god does not exist'.

Two different things...Two different things...Two different things. Atheism in general is defined by 'B', which is still a lack of belief (active/inactive notwithstanding).

First of all, you are twisting my words. I said people have a reason for believing what they do. I said that NOT UNDERSTANDING A REASON FOR SOMETHING'S EXISTENCE makes no difference in that independent being's existence. In other words, just because you don't believe there is a reason for God's existence doesn't make it so.

Ah, I see. You're right I did misunderstand you. But that's because I was giving you more credit than I ought to have given. I didn't think you were confused when you said that, so it confused me...But you were confused.

And this this is why you're confused (which answer by now given the redundancy of this response you may have guessed). Here was your response in full that I was replying to:

Reason has nothing to do with the existence of something or not. The uninitiated has no reason to understand why butterflies exist, and yet, they do. Your inability to "see a reason" makes no difference to the existence of another independent being, God or not.

I never said that my lack of a reason for believing in God means that he did not exist, which is the straw man you're arguing against here. Know why it's a straw man? Care to take a guess?

Because you're still incessantly and erroneously confusing the belief that God does not exist (general atheism) with the absolute assertion that he does not (the claim of what I believe is a fallacious form of atheism).

Had I stated 'God does not exist because I see no reason to believe he does' instead of 'I don't believe God exists because I see no reason that he does' then you might have had a point.

Need I repeat myself? I did not say: 'God does not exist because I see no reason to believe he does.'

I said: 'I don't believe God exists because I see no reason to believe he does'.

And to your misdirect, atheists that I have met on this thread...

Fragmentary, irrelevant sentence.

I discount "arguments from ignornance" as a reason for actively disbelieving. From your list of reasons, none of them apply to you.

I've tired myself of repeatedly exposing your confusion (see everything above).

yes, and I notice you change the definition of words when you see fit.

I don't like calling people liars, and I really don't believe you are. I believe you're just a bit obstinate, extremely truculent, and confused. But see above regarding dictionaries and definitions and whether or not I've changed or disagreed with those definitions (despite my repeated acknowledgment of them).

In addition, for example, you are the one who capriciously foisted synonymity between the words 'knowledge' and 'conviction' just for the sake of this conversation because if they're understood as synonymous, that makes you right by default! But there is a distinction, as well as a distinction between other words and concepts which are the basis of much of your confusion (shown above).

As such, further conversations with you will probably be a continued source of frustration

Irrelevant insults.

Words have meaning independent of you, but you choose not to accept that. I guess you define what words mean. You also change and twist the meaning of what I write. I have tried to explain my point of view, but apparently, I am unable to convey my thoughts to you effectively so that we can at least understand the other and "agree to disagree".

And I feel the same way. But I think I've uncovered the problem and where the confusion lay.

As I have said before, I may have missed some further explanations in your following posts, but I only have so much time to devote to this forum. I apologize if I missed a future clarification. Perhaps you could post to me in one post in the future, if you deem me worthy of continued conversation.

I won't continue this. You may take the last word.

And thanks, 'dadof10', for the vote of confidence. I twisted his words just for you. ;-)

Thanks,
Eric

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Are you going to play word games?

That's all this thread has become. All we do is define words, go around in circles and try to disparage and demean each other, while trying to stay within the TOS. I'm tired of it and don't have the time.

You win. The OP stands simply because an atheist wrote it. There you go...No waving of hands or anything else.

The OP does not stand simply because an atheist wrote it. It stands because there has been no successful attempt to assail it.

 

[wavy]

Agnostic does not mean lack of belief.

Agnostic means that you do not believe a god would be knowable, therefore unable to be evidentually supported or refuted.

Agnostic means that you consider it a non issue entirely one way or the other. That is entirely different than not believing, and is crucial for you to understand that difference.

Atheism takes the position that in order to believe, evidence should be provided and weighted (as with any belief). Atheists do not find the evidence sufficient, therefore fall back on not believing as with any system that is unsupported.

Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

There is a real difference in the position that you do not find it possible support or refute an area of knowledge, and not believing the affirmation of belief.

Once you understand the real difference in there we can move on.

Notice the red highlight above. Agnostics do lack belief because they don't believe. I am of the opinion that agnostics are a sub-category of atheists (see wiki-link to see the philosophers and philosophical literature cited there). But what distinguishes them are the definitions given above. They generally believe it is impossible to know.

The difference is not that don't they lack belief...because they do. You can ask an agnostic if God exists and he'll say he doesn't know. But that's different from asking them if they believe in God. The answer to that is 'no', and therefore they lack belief.

Also the difference is not that atheists make a positive assertion that 'God does not exist' while agnostics are not convinced by the evidence (i.e., 'francisdesales'). Neither are convinced by the evidence. It's just that one believes they don't exists (atheism) and the other believes it's impossible to know (agnostics). That's what he's not getting.

See what I mean?

Thanks,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

I won't continue this. You may take the last word.

If you have no intent to respond, I don't intend on replying to your pamphlet-sized windbag of a response, full of the usual ad hominems, incorrect presumptions on spelling, and condescending speech because you can't understand a point of view that differs from you. As I said long time ago, no one is going to be convinced by "logical" arguments if they hold to one side or the other. You aren't going to convince me, and I won't convince you. So rather than waste my time, we'll leave it at that.

P.S. this is a Christian forum. I highly doubt the 'audience' is going to give you two cents for your "argument".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Agnostic does not mean lack of belief.

Agnostic means that you do not believe a god would be knowable, therefore unable to be evidentually supported or refuted.

I believe that is only a partial truth... An agnostic has withheld a final "yes" or "no" BECAUSE the evidence is not convincing in one way or the other, to him. Whether this is because of his own inability to accept evidence outside of his own personal paradigm or whether he holds "belief in God" as unprovable or whether he sets the bar of evidence too high, or whether he just doesn't care, or whether he hasn't given it much thought, or whatever, he leaves the question undecided - probably, he doesn't care too much about it.

If a God is "unknowable", would you agree that this is a LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD???

Agnostic means that you consider it a non issue entirely one way or the other. That is entirely different than not believing, and is crucial for you to understand that difference.

If it is a non-issue, then it is neither believing or disbelieving.

I agree. Agnosticism is not a belief in God. It is a lack of belief OR disbelief. We find a distinction between agnosticism and atheism, correct? Thus, to define atheism (apart from agnosticism), we COULD NOT say merely "lack of belief in God". Atheism CANNOT be defined that way, unless you believe agnostics are also atheists. Agnostics are NOT atheists, and you have placed them in the same boat.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Agnostic does not mean lack of belief.

Agnostic means that you do not believe a god would be knowable, therefore unable to be evidentually supported or refuted.

Agnostic means that you consider it a non issue entirely one way or the other. That is entirely different than not believing, and is crucial for you to understand that difference.

Atheism takes the position that in order to believe, evidence should be provided and weighted (as with any belief). Atheists do not find the evidence sufficient, therefore fall back on not believing as with any system that is unsupported.

Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

There is a real difference in the position that you do not find it possible support or refute an area of knowledge, and not believing the affirmation of belief.

Once you understand the real difference in there we can move on.

Notice the red highlight above. Agnostics do lack belief because they don't believe. I am of the opinion that agnostics are a sub-category of atheists (see wiki-link to see the philosophers and philosophical literature cited there). But what distinguishes them are the definitions given above. They generally believe it is impossible to know.

The difference is not that don't they lack belief...because they do. You can ask an agnostic if God exists and he'll say he doesn't know. But that's different from asking them if they believe in God. The answer to that is 'no', and therefore they lack belief.

Also the difference is not that atheists make a positive assertion that 'God does not exist' while agnostics are not convinced by the evidence (i.e., 'francisdesales'). Neither are convinced by the evidence. It's just that one believes they don't exists (atheism) and the other believes it's impossible to know (agnostics). That's what he's not getting.

See what I mean?

Thanks,
Eric

I guess it is technically true, but I just feel it is not an accurate description to say agnostics lack a belief. They understand the question to be fundamentally unknowable either way, therefore irrelevant.

To me, it is like saying that I do not eat steak, when in reality I am vegan. (though that is pure example because I just stuffed down 8 ounces of sirloin ;) ) But maybe that is a false comparison.

But I guess by default they do lack a belief since they are not making the claim that God(s) exist.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Francis: I believe that is only a partial truth... An agnostic has withheld a final "yes" or "no" BECAUSE the evidence is not convincing in one way or the other, to him.

This is where I feel you are in error of your understanding of true agnostcism. To find evidence unconvincing means you are actually weighing the evidence.

An agnostic understands this question (and in fact true agnosticism believes ultimate reality to be in the same boat) to be unknowable. (versus the non-commital view)

In fact, there is an agnostic theist as well. This view is that there is a God, but that said God is unknowable.

If you deem an agnostic to simply lack belief, then this term would seem to be entirely contradictory. In fact, Christianity and Judaism embrace a light form of agnosticism with YHWH. He is considered to not be entirely understandable with human understanding, and specifically the workings of the Trinity. I believe I was reading something a while back on teachings from the Catholic church on partial agnosticism.

Agnosticism states that even if God or gods exist, they would be compeletely beyond human understanding, and therefore unknowable.

 

[wavy]

I won't continue this. You may take the last word.

If you have no intent to respond, I don't intend on replying to your pamphlet-sized windbag of a response, full of the usual ad hominems, incorrect presumptions on spelling, and condescending speech because you can't understand a point of view that differs from you. As I said long time ago, no one is going to be convinced by "logical" arguments if they hold to one side or the other. You aren't going to convince me, and I won't convince you. So rather than waste my time, we'll leave it at that.

P.S. this is a Christian forum. I highly doubt the 'audience' is going to give you two cents for your "argument".

Regards

I'm amazed by the hypocrisy highlighted in red.

Anyway:

francisdesales:

Self-devised definitions seems to be more down your alley, considering your definition of atheism disagrees with the dictionary AND the AA's own definition...A lack of belief is properly defined as agnosticism... Otherwise, atheism and agnosticism would have identical meanings.


dictionary:

atheism-
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings [ii]

/

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [iii]


wavy:

[i above] I'm 'firmly convinced' [i.e., have a belief] that God does not exist because I see no reason to believe that he does

[ii above] A lack of belief in gods is really the same thing as saying 'I don't believe god/s exist'. If you believe god/s don't exist, you lack belief in them (apparently).

[iii above] Atheism in the general sense is lack of belief in gods


Game. Set. Match. Case closed.


Thanks (and what a waste of my time),
Eric

 

[Veritas]

since we only believe God does not exists. We don't claim it in an absolute way (which would need a defense).

Interesting. Do you claim anything in an absolute way?

 

[wavy]

since we only believe God does not exists. We don't claim it in an absolute way (which would need a defense).

Interesting. Do you claim anything in an absolute way?

Normally, all humans do.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

Thanks (and what a waste of my time)

Ditto.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis: I believe that is only a partial truth... An agnostic has withheld a final "yes" or "no" BECAUSE the evidence is not convincing in one way or the other, to him.

This is where I feel you are in error of your understanding of true agnostcism. To find evidence unconvincing means you are actually weighing the evidence.

Yes, but we all "weigh" the evidence on such questions, correct? Being agnostic doesn't mean we don't weigh the evidence, but rather, the evidence is not convincing enough. This in of itself means he has withheld a "yes" or "no", correct?

I was agnostic for 20 years. I didn't find the "ordinary" evidence convincing enough. Being cynical, I easily accepted the stock disagreements regarding the historical reliability of Scriptures and so forth. I saw the hypocrisy of supposed Christians. I was not impressed with the argument. However, I do not ever recall believing there was no God - just that God was not "proven" by the Christian arguments that I had heard. I could see a Divine Creator in nature, but I couldn't know much about this Being, and Christianity was unconvincing to me (that God was kind or loving), especially when the question of evil appeared (why would a loving God allow babies to die, etc...)

And so, based upon my own experience, I am able to see the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I never made an active acclamation that "God doesn't exist". Nor did I accept the Christian definition of who God was. Perhaps the Muslims were right. I didn't know. At any rate, I did accept that I should try to live a "decent" life (an innate recognition that I would be judged by this "god"), whether I realized that explicitly or not at the time. Thus, agnosticism falls somewhere between a theist and an atheist. Such a person has withheld judgment that is more than philosophical.

In fact, there is an agnostic theist as well. This view is that there is a God, but that said God is unknowable.

yes, the agnostic falls between the two somewhere, and there is overlap. I have related my own experience, and I believe my views describe what you say.

In my opinion, most agnostics don't really consider it very much. I believe the question of God is very low priority on their minds. Some would even call them "practical atheists", in that they ACT like atheists because they don't consider God as an actual reality in their lives.

If you deem an agnostic to simply lack belief, then this term would seem to be entirely contradictory. In fact, Christianity and Judaism embrace a light form of agnosticism with YHWH. He is considered to not be entirely understandable with human understanding, and specifically the workings of the Trinity. I believe I was reading something a while back on teachings from the Catholic church on partial agnosticism.

It is true that we CANNOT fully know God. But we do believe He has revealed Himself to us in a manner in which we can make an act of faith and be reasonable in doing so. We don't call ourselves "agnostic", since we CAN know God exists. The "unknowable" stuff is refering more to His essence, and how He relates to time and space, and other such things. We can know God and experience Him, but we cannot fully comprehend His inner self - and this should not surprise you, as we cannot fully know the inner self of another human, even one we love and see everyday!

Agnosticism states that even if God or gods exist, they would be compeletely beyond human understanding, and therefore unknowable.

I think more properly, an agnostic would say that the evidence cannot scientifically or empirically make God "known". The issue of doubt is key. NO ONE claims to "KNOW" God, Scriptures state we cannot know God fully. But there is a difference between knowing God exists and knowing all about God - wouldn't you agree? The agnostic falls in the former category, theists fall into the later category. And atheists call the question moot because they know God doesn't exist.

Take care