Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is no such thing as an Agnostic Atheist

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:24:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

What about agnostic masons, do they believe in goats?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:24:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

What about agnostic masons, do they believe in goats?

Nope, just in a Grand Architect of the Universe. Goats are interesting creatures though... they are the only other mammal aside from cats that have the reptilian slit as a pupil.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:35:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor a disbelief in God(s) - Atheists take the absolute position that there is no God.

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? One is staying neutral, the other is taking a side. I don't see how this is so incredibly difficult for people to accept.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:38:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:35:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor a disbelief in God(s) - Atheists take the absolute position that there is no God.

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? One is staying neutral, the other is taking a side. I don't see how this is so incredibly difficult for people to accept.

That's not what your definitions say. Maybe try reading your alleged supposed evidence before posting it next time.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's largely a game of semantics. I called myself an agnostic for some time, and then Eddie pointed out the knowledge-belief dichotomy, and I conceded that, under that framing, I would qualify as both.

It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there isn't a such thing, but I do think it's wrong to throw around the "ignorant" label when this is largely a battle of semantics. And, honestly, who cares about labels anyway?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:38:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:35:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor a disbelief in God(s) - Atheists take the absolute position that there is no God.

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? One is staying neutral, the other is taking a side. I don't see how this is so incredibly difficult for people to accept.

That's not what your definitions say. Maybe try reading your alleged supposed evidence before posting it next time.

Right, it up to EVERYONE but atheists to explain and prove anything to atheists who will deny EVERYTHING?

So lets break it down atheists shall we?

Atheism mean you don;t think there is a God. Whether that DEFINITE = Gnostic Atheism and whether you think it improbable = Agnostic atheism.

That basically says I think the reasons that drove me to believe God are deductive in nature, i.e. absolute, or inductive, highly improbable.

There is no problem with that definition, save that it must be made in reference to the STANDARD that atheists believe there in no God.

The problem arises when you ask these atheists to explain HOW they arrived at that conclusion, either inductively or deductively. This is where atheists freak the hell out.

You get all kind of erroneous BS about the BOP, when the claim requiring support would be the jack hole screaming about rationalism and logic and science, and demonstrating how these lead to a conclusion that there is no God or God is improbable.

That SHOULD be fairly easy to do. The problem is that atheists realize, deep down that atheism is just a weak inductive argument that is not terribly convincing. I mean its acceptable if you just disagree, but when you are actively trolling ... I mean attempting to burn religious people at the stake ... I mean calling the poison to humanity ... I mean calling the de-evolving apes who reject science and are stupid ... that what we have here is a serious problem for said atheists.

Because let's face it, atheists behaving like that are not at all uncertain in their beliefs about God.

But they also know if they actually had to make a case rather than just be douches ... er, atheists, that they would fail miserable to be able to support that kind of destructive intellectual napalm.

So what do we get? Semantics.

We get the magical ability of atheism to be 'merely the disbelief in God.'

Somehow this means that atheism doe snot have a logical requirement to back up the all the nihilistic swill they are hurling. Because when confronted, "So, you don't believe in God?" (Which if fairly obvious based on their actions), the answer is ... no, yes, maybe? I am not even actually making a claim ... save that you are so wrong you must be retarded to be a Christian ... but really, I am merely rejecting your arguments ... but I cannot explain why I reject them either ... er, I hate religion?

SO we are left with the confused reality of atheists who really just want to excuse insulting people.

They clearly do not believe in God - atheists - yet they are 'honestly' - uncertain.

1+1=2 and I have no fringing idea.

The entire premise of agnostic atheism is nothing more than a pernicious excuse to avoid atheism's burden of proof. And the more they scream we must go first? The more we remind them that they are just saying they rejected our arguments ... which indicates that we went first.

Its the quintessential cult of atheism.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:51:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:38:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:35:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor a disbelief in God(s) - Atheists take the absolute position that there is no God.

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? One is staying neutral, the other is taking a side. I don't see how this is so incredibly difficult for people to accept.

That's not what your definitions say. Maybe try reading your alleged supposed evidence before posting it next time.

I don't think you are intelligent enough to grasp the difference between either/neither and or/nor.

Neither: Not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either:
[AS DETERMINER]: neither side of the brain is dominant over the other. [1]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

What this means, is that the agnostic is not choosing the side of faith, NOR is he choosing the side of disbelief. NEITHER. Meaning not one or the other lol. Agnostics do not believe that god exists or does not exist because we take the position of neither side. Atheists take the position that God does not exist. They are choosing a side.

Maybe you need to understand this as if you were a 4 year old. If Theism is hot water, and Atheism is cold water, agnosticism is the luke warm water right in the middle. It's not hot, nor is it cold. Agnostics do not say they don't believe in God, Agnostics do not say they believe in a God. Agnostics take the neutral position, neither admitting nor subscribing to either side which takes an absolute position.

If you DON'T believe in a God. As in you say that God does not exist - then you are an Atheist. Plain and Simple. If you believe that God exists - then you are a Theist. If you do not know whether God exists or not, or simply do not care while also acknowledging that you take neither side, then you are Agnostic. One cannot both be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

If that was the case, you'd be saying that there is no God (Atheist position) - while also admitting that you don't believe there is no god (Agnostic). It would literally contradict itself. So, if you are still ignorant enough to believe that those two things are compatible, then you are a walking contradiction and know nothing about your own position. Unless you know with surety that God either exists (Theism) or doesn't exist (Atheism) then your best bet would be to go with Agnosticism since you admit you do not know whether God exists or doesn't.

For me, I don't know whether God exists or doesn't. So I can't take a theist position which says that God exists, nor can I take an atheist position which says that God doesn't exist. I am in the middle ground which neither acknowledges a believe in God nor a disbelief in God. If it is the same for you, then you are an agnostic, not an atheist.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 1:59:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:51:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:38:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:35:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor a disbelief in God(s) - Atheists take the absolute position that there is no God.

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? One is staying neutral, the other is taking a side. I don't see how this is so incredibly difficult for people to accept.

That's not what your definitions say. Maybe try reading your alleged supposed evidence before posting it next time.

I don't think you are intelligent enough to grasp the difference between either/neither and or/nor.

Neither: Not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either:
[AS DETERMINER]: neither side of the brain is dominant over the other. [1]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

What this means, is that the agnostic is not choosing the side of faith, NOR is he choosing the side of disbelief. NEITHER. Meaning not one or the other lol. Agnostics do not believe that god exists or does not exist because we take the position of neither side. Atheists take the position that God does not exist. They are choosing a side.

Maybe you need to understand this as if you were a 4 year old. If Theism is hot water, and Atheism is cold water, agnosticism is the luke warm water right in the middle. It's not hot, nor is it cold. Agnostics do not say they don't believe in God, Agnostics do not say they believe in a God. Agnostics take the neutral position, neither admitting nor subscribing to either side which takes an absolute position.

If you DON'T believe in a God. As in you say that God does not exist - then you are an Atheist. Plain and Simple. If you believe that God exists - then you are a Theist. If you do not know whether God exists or not, or simply do not care while also acknowledging that you take neither side, then you are Agnostic. One cannot both be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

If that was the case, you'd be saying that there is no God (Atheist position) - while also admitting that you don't believe there is no god (Agnostic). It would literally contradict itself. So, if you are still ignorant enough to believe that those two things are compatible, then you are a walking contradiction and know nothing about your own position. Unless you know with surety that God either exists (Theism) or doesn't exist (Atheism) then your best bet would be to go with Agnosticism since you admit you do not know whether God exists or doesn't.

For me, I don't know whether God exists or doesn't. So I can't take a theist position which says that God exists, nor can I take an atheist position which says that God doesn't exist. I am in the middle ground which neither acknowledges a believe in God nor a disbelief in God. If it is the same for you, then you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

Your definition for agnostic said someone who "claims neither faith nor disbelief in a God." Does that mean they have belief in a god or no?

Your definition of atheist said someone who"lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Lacking belief in a god is not the same as believing that a god does not exist. There is a position between belief in something and belief in the opposite of that something: lack of belief in either.

This is not hard. You posted the words and seem to not understand them. Next time you want to claim two things are incompatible, don't post definitions that explicitly show them to be compatible. Question my intelligence all you want, but I didn't try to make a point and then post something in support of that point that directly contradicts it.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 2:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:59:20 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:51:48 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:38:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:35:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:25:31 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

The two bolded parts in those definitions mean the same thing. By your own definitions, an agnostic atheist can exist.

Not that it really matters. Label me agnostic if you want to. The label isn't important.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor a disbelief in God(s) - Atheists take the absolute position that there is no God.

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? One is staying neutral, the other is taking a side. I don't see how this is so incredibly difficult for people to accept.

That's not what your definitions say. Maybe try reading your alleged supposed evidence before posting it next time.

I don't think you are intelligent enough to grasp the difference between either/neither and or/nor.

Neither: Not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either:
[AS DETERMINER]: neither side of the brain is dominant over the other. [1]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

What this means, is that the agnostic is not choosing the side of faith, NOR is he choosing the side of disbelief. NEITHER. Meaning not one or the other lol. Agnostics do not believe that god exists or does not exist because we take the position of neither side. Atheists take the position that God does not exist. They are choosing a side.

Maybe you need to understand this as if you were a 4 year old. If Theism is hot water, and Atheism is cold water, agnosticism is the luke warm water right in the middle. It's not hot, nor is it cold. Agnostics do not say they don't believe in God, Agnostics do not say they believe in a God. Agnostics take the neutral position, neither admitting nor subscribing to either side which takes an absolute position.

If you DON'T believe in a God. As in you say that God does not exist - then you are an Atheist. Plain and Simple. If you believe that God exists - then you are a Theist. If you do not know whether God exists or not, or simply do not care while also acknowledging that you take neither side, then you are Agnostic. One cannot both be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

If that was the case, you'd be saying that there is no God (Atheist position) - while also admitting that you don't believe there is no god (Agnostic). It would literally contradict itself. So, if you are still ignorant enough to believe that those two things are compatible, then you are a walking contradiction and know nothing about your own position. Unless you know with surety that God either exists (Theism) or doesn't exist (Atheism) then your best bet would be to go with Agnosticism since you admit you do not know whether God exists or doesn't.

For me, I don't know whether God exists or doesn't. So I can't take a theist position which says that God exists, nor can I take an atheist position which says that God doesn't exist. I am in the middle ground which neither acknowledges a believe in God nor a disbelief in God. If it is the same for you, then you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

Your definition for agnostic said someone who "claims neither faith nor disbelief in a God." Does that mean they have belief in a god or no?

It's the no (for your question). When it says they claim neither faith nor disbelief it means that they aren't choosing any of those positions, or better, that they don't choose either position. It's literally the neutral position. They don't believe in God, but they also don't believe that God doesn't exist. It's confusing because normally one must either say god exists or he doesn't exist. But agnosticism takes the position that they don't know whether he exists or not so they don't choose either side.

Your definition of atheist said someone who"lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Lacking belief in a god is not the same as believing that a god does not exist. There is a position between belief in something and belief in the opposite of that something: lack of belief in either.

EXACTLY - that position you speak, the lack of belief in either, is called Agnosticism. If you don't believe god exists, and are sure of your position - then you are an atheist. If you are not 100% sure that God doesn't exist, then you are agnostic. To be atheist you must believe that there is no God, there can be no doubt in that belief as it is taking an absolute position. If you do have doubt, then you are not an atheist.

The definition for atheism I shared literally says: "Lacks belief in the existence of God" yet you are saying that that isn't the same as "believing that a god does not exist?" Are you joking? It literally means the same thing.

This is not hard. You posted the words and seem to not understand them. Next time you want to claim two things are incompatible, don't post definitions that explicitly show them to be compatible. Question my intelligence all you want, but I didn't try to make a point and then post something in support of that point that directly contradicts it.

Lol, please re-read the response just above this one. You are the only one contradicting yourself. You fail to understand what the term 'neither' means, even after I defined it for you, as evident by your ignorant opening question. You fail to comprehend that one side is taking an absolute position while the other is staying neutral. The funniest part about all of this, is that you yourself are saying you aren't sure if God doesn't exist, yet fail to even comprehend the absolute positioning that atheism takes. You're an agnostic, if anything.

To be an atheist, you need to believe - without a doubt - that God does not exist. If you have some doubt about it, you are not an atheist, but rather an agnostic. You cannot have doubt while taking an absolute position. Do you even know what an absolute position or claim is?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 2:41:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

That definition has always struck me as absurd. It is akin to me saying theism is the "lack of disbelief" in God. The only reasonable definition is that if you believe in God(s) you are a theist, if you don't believe in God(s) you are an atheist, and if you don't take a position either way you are agnostic.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 2:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 2:41:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

That definition has always struck me as absurd. It is akin to me saying theism is the "lack of disbelief" in God. The only reasonable definition is that if you believe in God(s) you are a theist, if you don't believe in God(s) you are an atheist, and if you don't take a position either way you are agnostic.

I partially disagree, as I don't think you could say that agnosticism is a statement of belief, but rather of knowledge. So, in that respect, if you claim to be agnostic, you're not saying that you either believe or disbelieve. You could either believe in God and be an agnostic theist, or disbelieve in God and be an agnostic atheist. But that doesn't erode the dichotomy between agnosticism and gnosticism.

It's largely semantics, and not much more.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 2:48:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

Saying you are not an atheist and not a theist is a logical impossibility.
The definition of disbelieve is not believe.
If you are not a theist and not an atheist you are saying the following:
"I do not believe and I do not not believe in a god."
It is an obvious contradiction.

Agnostic atheism is saying you do not know if there is a god or not, which is the part before the semicolon on the definition, so you do not believe in a god.
JosephNorth
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

So, yeah.....about all that....

Not only is there such a thing as an agnostic atheist, but there's also such a thing as an agnostic theist.

Agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, but I don't think there's a way we'll ever be able to prove it one way or another..

Agnostic theist - I believe in a god, but I don't think it's possible we can prove one way or another.

And just gonna leave this right here....
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I know some people get heated about "ignorant fools"....figured I'd lend a helping hand. :)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 2:48:08 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

Saying you are not an atheist and not a theist is a logical impossibility.
The definition of disbelieve is not believe.
If you are not a theist and not an atheist you are saying the following:
"I do not believe and I do not not believe in a god."
It is an obvious contradiction.

Agnostic atheism is saying you do not know if there is a god or not, which is the part before the semicolon on the definition, so you do not believe in a god.

Lol, you're restricting yourself to dualistic conceptions. The definitions I've shared are clear as they can be. There is no conclusive evidence for God existing, there is no conclusive evidence for God not existing. If anything, I am taking the most logical position possible - that of neither end. To put it simply, I do not KNOW whether God exists or not - so I do not subscribe to either absolute position.

You saying it has to be one or the other is nothing but a reflection of the limitations you place on yourself when operating in this reality. There is no logical reasoning/ground behind "agnostic atheism" because you are still taking the position that because you do not know if there is a god, that there is no god. It's the sign of ignorance. If you do not know - then you cannot take the absolute position of either atheism or theism. Key word - absolute. There can be no doubt.

I'm sorry if it is hard for you to accept that there is another alternative to neither believing and not believing. Agnosticism is taking the position of neither. Someday, hopefully, you will see that everything doesn't have to be "one or the other" but to say that you are an agnostic atheist or that anyone is - is pure stupidity.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:08:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:03:17 PM, JosephNorth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

So, yeah.....about all that....

Not only is there such a thing as an agnostic atheist, but there's also such a thing as an agnostic theist.

Agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, but I don't think there's a way we'll ever be able to prove it one way or another..

Agnostic theist - I believe in a god, but I don't think it's possible we can prove one way or another.

And just gonna leave this right here....
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I know some people get heated about "ignorant fools"....figured I'd lend a helping hand. :)

Start a new profile to comment on this? Lol.

Both of those positions are beyond ignorant. They are taking an absolute position by saying they either believe or disbelieve. Then they try to justify it with the agnostic position included in the 2nd half so they aren't susceptible to the destruction that usually meets both sides of these absolute ends. You cannot believe, nor disbelieve while still claiming to be agnostic. It's a neutral position... is this hard to comprehend?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 2:45:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 2:41:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

That definition has always struck me as absurd. It is akin to me saying theism is the "lack of disbelief" in God. The only reasonable definition is that if you believe in God(s) you are a theist, if you don't believe in God(s) you are an atheist, and if you don't take a position either way you are agnostic.

I partially disagree, as I don't think you could say that agnosticism is a statement of belief, but rather of knowledge. So, in that respect, if you claim to be agnostic, you're not saying that you either believe or disbelieve. You could either believe in God and be an agnostic theist, or disbelieve in God and be an agnostic atheist. But that doesn't erode the dichotomy between agnosticism and gnosticism.

I see what you mean there. Agnostics don't believe the existence of God is knowable, so you could place it off the spectrum. Maybe the ideal religious belief spectrum would be like the political compass - four grids, covering both knowledge (gnosticism vs. agnosticism) and belief (atheism vs. theism). The flaw with that, however, is that agnosticism is fairly well linked to atheism in terms of community and beliefs. The theoretical 'agnostic theist' seems to basically be non-existent.

It's largely semantics, and not much more.

Agreed, but that's what self-described labels are. It's like all the different labels the gay community or religious communities use.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I think it's largely a game of semantics. I called myself an agnostic for some time, and then Eddie pointed out the knowledge-belief dichotomy, and I conceded that, under that framing, I would qualify as both.

It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there isn't a such thing, but I do think it's wrong to throw around the "ignorant" label when this is largely a battle of semantics. And, honestly, who cares about labels anyway?

Clearly you do since you are weighing in.

The definitions I layed out are clear. The conflicting nature of the two terms are clear. If you cannot comprehend this - stick to economics.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:12:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 2:41:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

That definition has always struck me as absurd. It is akin to me saying theism is the "lack of disbelief" in God. The only reasonable definition is that if you believe in God(s) you are a theist, if you don't believe in God(s) you are an atheist, and if you don't take a position either way you are agnostic.

Exactly - I'm literally fighting stupidity right now. The definitions are clear. I feel that it's people not wanting to give up their own understanding on these positions that are putting up the biggest fight here.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:15:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:11:01 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I think it's largely a game of semantics. I called myself an agnostic for some time, and then Eddie pointed out the knowledge-belief dichotomy, and I conceded that, under that framing, I would qualify as both.

It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there isn't a such thing, but I do think it's wrong to throw around the "ignorant" label when this is largely a battle of semantics. And, honestly, who cares about labels anyway?

Clearly you do since you are weighing in.

The definitions I layed out are clear. The conflicting nature of the two terms are clear. If you cannot comprehend this - stick to economics.

Addison, I don't appreciate you attacking my intelligence.

You laid out definitions, which is all well and good. There are conflicting definitions available on the web, and many atheists subscribe to the knowledge-belief dichotomy. I told you that I don't have a position either way, so my weighing isn't taking a position on this, but merely expressing a view -- which people are allowed to do on this forum, by the way -- and pushing back against your highly incendiary remark that people who disagree with you are "ignorant."
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:15:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 2:45:22 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 2:41:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

That definition has always struck me as absurd. It is akin to me saying theism is the "lack of disbelief" in God. The only reasonable definition is that if you believe in God(s) you are a theist, if you don't believe in God(s) you are an atheist, and if you don't take a position either way you are agnostic.

I partially disagree, as I don't think you could say that agnosticism is a statement of belief, but rather of knowledge. So, in that respect, if you claim to be agnostic, you're not saying that you either believe or disbelieve.

Actually, Paul, agnosticism is exactly saying that you choose neither position. The definitions I've shared above are pretty clear on that.

You could either believe in God and be an agnostic theist, or disbelieve in God and be an agnostic atheist. But that doesn't erode the dichotomy between agnosticism and gnosticism.

It's largely semantics, and not much more.

I knew you were one of those people, arguing the garbage you are right now. You cannot be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist because the latter half of both terms are representative of an absolute position. People trying to throw agnostic in-front or behind those terms are doing nothing but trying to justify a position that literally contradicts itself. Please read my reply to another person who falls into your camp on this issue to see further clarification on this point.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

First time i ever agreed with a freemason. Now i need a bath.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:03:17 PM, JosephNorth wrote:


Agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, but I don't think there's a way we'll ever be able to prove it one way or another..

Agnostic theist - I believe in a god, but I don't think it's possible we can prove one way or another.


Yes, Wikipedia is the quintessential finality to definitional quagmire.

#1 - If you are an agnostic theist by that definition you still have the little old problem of stating why you have no basis for your belief, but choose to believe ANYWAY. Your atheism is just a faith then, correct?

It states, hmmm ...I examined the evidence, and could see it going either way ... viola, I am an atheist! You see?

Do you see the hole in the logical reasoning there?

#2 - Same logical problem applies.

#3 - What both of these say, essentially is that the claimants position is emotional rather than logical correct? Its states evidence to me to indeterminate, but I am determined anyway!

Its why you almost never see an 'agnostic' theist. You never see an agnostic Christian. An Agnostic Hindu, etc. Because the premise is absurd. I am uncertain that Christ is real, but I believe he is the real and genuine Son of God anyway!

People would righty look askance at that statement, and question its very logic.

Why then should anyone accept the same kind of illogic from atheists who attach 'agnostic' to it? It says, I am certain ... but my evidence is not, my reasoning is not preponderant.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Actually, Paul, agnosticism is exactly saying that you choose neither position. The definitions I've shared above are pretty clear on that.


You shared some definitions, which I haven't denied in the least bit. I'm merely presenting the other side, whereby -- shocking, I know -- some people don't agree with you. There are many others who can make the case better than I can, probably because issues like actually matter to them whereas I am fairly apathetic, but that's simply it. "Ignorant" is not the right label, Addison, and you should know better.

You could either believe in God and be an agnostic theist, or disbelieve in God and be an agnostic atheist. But that doesn't erode the dichotomy between agnosticism and gnosticism.

It's largely semantics, and not much more.

I knew you were one of those people, arguing the garbage you are right now. You cannot be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist because the latter half of both terms are representative of an absolute position. People trying to throw agnostic in-front or behind those terms are doing nothing but trying to justify a position that literally contradicts itself. Please read my reply to another person who falls into your camp on this issue to see further clarification on this point.

You "knew" I was one of those people? Interesting.

Again, I'm not "one of those people," unless I'm "one of those people" who argues that semantics matters in many cases. I know that you read philosophy and we've discussed before that semantics is quite important, so I'm not sure why you're taking this position.

The point is this: if I consider myself a theist -- and I don't, but let's take it for a moment that I do -- I am not saying that I am 100% certain that God exists. Some could, and would consider themselves gnostic. But many accept that it's still an open question and whether God exists or not may not possess truth value.

I'd rather discuss this with you later on, perhaps before or after mafia, as I'm not a big fan of arguing with you in the forums when this isn't exactly something I feel particularly strongly on, and I have no real interest in fighting with you over something so silly.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:22:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:15:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 3:11:01 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I think it's largely a game of semantics. I called myself an agnostic for some time, and then Eddie pointed out the knowledge-belief dichotomy, and I conceded that, under that framing, I would qualify as both.

It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there isn't a such thing, but I do think it's wrong to throw around the "ignorant" label when this is largely a battle of semantics. And, honestly, who cares about labels anyway?

Clearly you do since you are weighing in.

The definitions I layed out are clear. The conflicting nature of the two terms are clear. If you cannot comprehend this - stick to economics.

Addison, I don't appreciate you attacking my intelligence.

And I don't appreciate ignorant positions by people who can't even see the conflicting nature of merging terms like agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. It's really quite simple paul. Either A - You believe God exists, B - You believe God doesn't exist, or C - You choose neither side. Anything else falls into either A or B. It's so simple, yet people like you tend to over think it and then subscribe to nonsense positions that somehow merge a null position with an absolute one lol.

You laid out definitions, which is all well and good. There are conflicting definitions available on the web, and many atheists subscribe to the knowledge-belief dichotomy. I told you that I don't have a position either way, so my weighing isn't taking a position on this, but merely expressing a view -- which people are allowed to do on this forum, by the way -- and pushing back against your highly incendiary remark that people who disagree with you are "ignorant."

It's not that people who disagree with me are ignorant. It's people who ignore the black and white definitions I've shared from one of the most respectable sources on the web. You're promoting a false ideal based on merging two positions that cannot, at their core, be merged. That is an ignorant act.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:22:04 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 3:15:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 6/25/2014 3:11:01 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:41:36 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I think it's largely a game of semantics. I called myself an agnostic for some time, and then Eddie pointed out the knowledge-belief dichotomy, and I conceded that, under that framing, I would qualify as both.

It depends largely on how you define the terms. I've always defined atheism as "lack of belief" in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist. That would be positive atheism, would it not? By that standard, I would be agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know, and atheist in the sense that belief is active and I don't presently believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there isn't a such thing, but I do think it's wrong to throw around the "ignorant" label when this is largely a battle of semantics. And, honestly, who cares about labels anyway?

Clearly you do since you are weighing in.

The definitions I layed out are clear. The conflicting nature of the two terms are clear. If you cannot comprehend this - stick to economics.

Addison, I don't appreciate you attacking my intelligence.

And I don't appreciate ignorant positions by people who can't even see the conflicting nature of merging terms like agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. It's really quite simple paul. Either A - You believe God exists, B - You believe God doesn't exist, or C - You choose neither side. Anything else falls into either A or B. It's so simple, yet people like you tend to over think it and then subscribe to nonsense positions that somehow merge a null position with an absolute one lol.


There's a big difference between calling a position ignorant and attacking a person. In your OP, you called people who subscribed to this view "ignorant fools," and here you have insulted my intelligence by telling me to "stick to economics" as though it's all I'lll ever be good for, which we both know is hardly the case.

Anyway, you claim it's a conflicting position. Fine, let's discuss it later, lol. There are plenty of sources and prominent figures backing my position, but again, the question remains: how does this at all matter? Moreover, why would it matter so much that you would actually make a thread attacking people?

You laid out definitions, which is all well and good. There are conflicting definitions available on the web, and many atheists subscribe to the knowledge-belief dichotomy. I told you that I don't have a position either way, so my weighing isn't taking a position on this, but merely expressing a view -- which people are allowed to do on this forum, by the way -- and pushing back against your highly incendiary remark that people who disagree with you are "ignorant."

It's not that people who disagree with me are ignorant. It's people who ignore the black and white definitions I've shared from one of the most respectable sources on the web. You're promoting a false ideal based on merging two positions that cannot, at their core, be merged. That is an ignorant act.

That first statement is interesting, as you called these people "ignorant fools" in your first post.

I'm not ignoring the black and white definitions. I'm merely pointing out that language is man-made and thus subjective, and some people subscribe to a different dichotomy. That doesn't make them ignorant, or even their position ignorant, at least from where I stand.
JosephNorth
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:27:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:08:43 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 3:03:17 PM, JosephNorth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

So, yeah.....about all that....

Not only is there such a thing as an agnostic atheist, but there's also such a thing as an agnostic theist.

Agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, but I don't think there's a way we'll ever be able to prove it one way or another..

Agnostic theist - I believe in a god, but I don't think it's possible we can prove one way or another.

And just gonna leave this right here....
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I know some people get heated about "ignorant fools"....figured I'd lend a helping hand. :)

Start a new profile to comment on this? Lol.

Both of those positions are beyond ignorant. They are taking an absolute position by saying they either believe or disbelieve. Then they try to justify it with the agnostic position included in the 2nd half so they aren't susceptible to the destruction that usually meets both sides of these absolute ends. You cannot believe, nor disbelieve while still claiming to be agnostic. It's a neutral position... is this hard to comprehend?

I did, actually. Thanks for noticing.

To be fair, your point is really easy to comprehend, if it wasn't for a simple mistake that you made (and to extend the fairness further, it's a really common mistake for most people to make) in that you're assuming that, on a sliding scale, it goes:

Theist (believes in deities) --> Agnostic (isn't sure if there are any deities) --> Atheist (doesn't believe in deities).

Alas, this scale is incorrect. The two words describe two different aspects of an individual. In terms of believing in deities, you're either a theist or an atheist. In terms of proving (or knowing) that there are deities, then the terms you'd use are Gnostic or Agnostic. You can totally believe in God, and also believe that we'll never be able to prove it (Agnostic theist). You can also believe there is no God, and also believe that we'll never be able to prove it (Agnostic atheist). You can believe in God and also believe that there's proof everywhere (Gnostic theist), or not believe in God and believe that the proof is obvious (Gnostic atheist).

Very subtle differences. But the differences are still enough that I don't think it warrants a black/white "You either agree with me and are smart, or you disagree with me and are an ignorant fool" mindset.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:28:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:20:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Actually, Paul, agnosticism is exactly saying that you choose neither position. The definitions I've shared above are pretty clear on that.


You shared some definitions, which I haven't denied in the least bit. I'm merely presenting the other side, whereby -- shocking, I know -- some people don't agree with you. There are many others who can make the case better than I can, probably because issues like actually matter to them whereas I am fairly apathetic, but that's simply it. "Ignorant" is not the right label, Addison, and you should know better.


You could either believe in God and be an agnostic theist, or disbelieve in God and be an agnostic atheist. But that doesn't erode the dichotomy between agnosticism and gnosticism.

It's largely semantics, and not much more.

I knew you were one of those people, arguing the garbage you are right now. You cannot be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist because the latter half of both terms are representative of an absolute position. People trying to throw agnostic in-front or behind those terms are doing nothing but trying to justify a position that literally contradicts itself. Please read my reply to another person who falls into your camp on this issue to see further clarification on this point.

You "knew" I was one of those people? Interesting.

Again, I'm not "one of those people," unless I'm "one of those people" who argues that semantics matters in many cases. I know that you read philosophy and we've discussed before that semantics is quite important, so I'm not sure why you're taking this position.

The point is this: if I consider myself a theist -- and I don't, but let's take it for a moment that I do -- I am not saying that I am 100% certain that God exists. Some could, and would consider themselves gnostic. But many accept that it's still an open question and whether God exists or not may not possess truth value.

I'd rather discuss this with you later on, perhaps before or after mafia, as I'm not a big fan of arguing with you in the forums when this isn't exactly something I feel particularly strongly on, and I have no real interest in fighting with you over something so silly.

What it means is that you are honest enough to acknowledge that the evidence is inductive - probable. Its why theists acknowledge the LOGICAL requirement of faith.

Such a stance, as required by logic mind you, does not require the qualifier that its 'agnostic' - which is a COMPLETELY different definition that indicates inderminant evidence - not preponderant evidence or probability.

People use inductive reasoning ALL the time, without adding the term agnostic in front it. And if they did?

We cannot, by definition tell the future, yet we are pretty certain the Sun will come up tomorrow? Because it has for billions of years and the fusion process states it will for several billion years? The fundamental forces of the universe that keep this process moving appear stable? BUT, that could ALL change at some point tonight. It could.

Does that make me a agnostic the sun will come out tomorrower?

Or does it just mean I am certain that the sun will come out tomorrow because the chances of it NOT coming up tomorrow are so slim as to be discounted completely.

Please not that I am able to support that conclusion with some type of reasoning and explanation. Using the term agnostic, as it is often used by atheists, does not mean you get to be an atheist without explainable reasoning. You believe God is improbable ... because ... some are better than others.

Tagging the word agnostic in front of something is merely obfuscatory.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:30:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 3:04:06 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 6/25/2014 2:48:08 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 6/25/2014 1:20:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've heard several people claim to be agnostic atheists... please, stop with the ignorance. You cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It literally contradicts each other.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [1]

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are not one-in-the-same, nor are they compatible. Please stop with the ignorance. You are either an agnostic, or you are an atheist, not both. Whenever you try to say you are both, you look like a fvcking retard. #RealityCheck

P.S. - This has nothing to with with those of you who are theists or deists. I simply hate ignorant fools who think those two systems of belief are the same thing or even similar.

Saying you are not an atheist and not a theist is a logical impossibility.
The definition of disbelieve is not believe.
If you are not a theist and not an atheist you are saying the following:
"I do not believe and I do not not believe in a god."
It is an obvious contradiction.

Agnostic atheism is saying you do not know if there is a god or not, which is the part before the semicolon on the definition, so you do not believe in a god.

Lol, you're restricting yourself to dualistic conceptions. The definitions I've shared are clear as they can be. There is no conclusive evidence for God existing, there is no conclusive evidence for God not existing. If anything, I am taking the most logical position possible - that of neither end. To put it simply, I do not KNOW whether God exists or not - so I do not subscribe to either absolute position.

You saying it has to be one or the other is nothing but a reflection of the limitations you place on yourself when operating in this reality. There is no logical reasoning/ground behind "agnostic atheism" because you are still taking the position that because you do not know if there is a god, that there is no god.

Look at the definitions you provided.

Atheist- A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is NOT saying "there is no god." It is saying that if you do not believe in a god that you are an atheist.
~A =/= B
Not believing in a god =/= there is no god.

It's the sign of ignorance. If you do not know - then you cannot take the absolute position of either atheism or theism. Key word - absolute. There can be no doubt.

I'm sorry if it is hard for you to accept that there is another alternative to neither believing and not believing. Agnosticism is taking the position of neither. Someday, hopefully, you will see that everything doesn't have to be "one or the other" but to say that you are an agnostic atheist or that anyone is - is pure stupidity.

No, stupidity is saying that the following is a logical statement.
Person X takes the stance of ~A and ~(~A).

It is an illogical statement, HOWEVER you can make the entire thing logical by making FOUR positions a person can take instead of 2 and 1 illogical one.

Basic definitions:
Gnotic: To know
Agnostic: Not to know
Theism: believe in a god
Atheism: lack of belief in a god

Stances:
Gnostic Theist: Believes in a god and claims there is a god.
Agnostic Theist: Believes in a god but does not know if there is one or not.
Agnostic Atheist: Does not believe in a god and does not know if there is one or not.
Gnostic Atheist: Does not believe in a god and claims there is no god.

Using that structure, which a lot of people already do, you get rid of illogical positions.