Agnosticism is Dishonesty

[lrkun]

Well, no, it's not, and I'm surprised (should I be?) that you've managed to remain a member of discussions with atheists for as long as you have and still not picked up on it.

You might be surprised to learn that perhaps even you, yourself, are an atheist! (although I do not know if you hold a belief in any god)

Atheism, generally speaking, is the lack of a belief in a god. That's all that's required.

You might call me an agnostic, and that's true, but that refers to knowledge.

I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in any deity (not because I assert that gods do not exist) and I am agnostic because I make no claims of knowledge in regards to deities.

I think you have one of the fundamentals entirely the wrong way around, and if you read any post regarding this you will find numerous atheists making this clear to all and sundry, over and over again.

I am an atheist. I am surprised you didn't know.

However, I can't agree on something based on anothers opinion that has no ground to stand on. :lol:

 

[Nautyskin]

not only that but they are bad definitions that do not fit
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity
It requires no active disbelief

If we apply your definition then you are correct, but if I apply the dictionary definition you are wrong.

Which dictionary? Any of the following?

http://dictionary.babylon.com/atheism/

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=atheism&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG

Consequently, I favor the dictionary definition, because that reflects the accepted definition.

The majority of atheists are going to disagree with you about that on these forums, and on any other atheist-dominated forums you attend.

Why? Because that's the accepted definition among the majority of online atheists, and guess what? That's who you're talking to.

Which may work for some things
But Atheism/Theism are things you fall into by default
if you have ANY belief you are a theist
if you don' then you are an Atheist
How can you neither believe nor not believe at the same time?

I disagree. One can abstain if there is no proof or evidence to support a claim.

You can't 'disagree' that 1 and 0 are two states of a binary proposition :lol:

 

[lrkun]

I'm using http://oxforddictionaries.com/



Nevertheless, so what if people disagree with me. I'm just stating facts. :lol:

If I were afraid of then I probably would have never started posting in these forums.

 

[Nautyskin]

I am an atheist. I am surprised you didn't know.

Then how is it that you partake in an atheist-dominated forum (for how long has it been?) and still don't know that the majority of them define atheism as the lack of a belief in a god?

However, I can't agree on something based on anothers opinion that has no ground to stand on. :lol:

You're disagreeing with the majority-held definition of a word, where that definition is integral to nearly all discussions in the "Religion & Irreligion" category that you're posting on.

All the 'lol' in the world is not going to change that.

 

[lrkun]

I am an atheist. I am surprised you didn't know.

Then how is it that you partake in an atheist-dominated forum (for how long has it been?) and still don't know that the majority of them define atheism as the lack of a belief in a god?

However, I can't agree on something based on anothers opinion that has no ground to stand on. :lol:

You're disagreeing with the majority-held definition of a word, where that definition is integral to nearly all discussions in the "Religion & Irreligion" category that you're posting on.

All the 'lol' in the world is not going to change that.

I'm disagreeing with the minority definition of the word. The dictionary definition is the majority definition of the word. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Look, if you're so troubled, try attacking me with facts rather than questioning my nonconformity.

 

[theatheistguy]

atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief - inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

- lack of faith:

agnosticism - nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

-(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:

I'm just using the dictionary definition. If I made a mistake, blame the Oxford.

I do blame 'the Oxford' as do many others. Dictionary companies receive complaints every year for false definitions, especially atheism. I direct you to the etymology of the word:

a- meaning without or lack of
theos meaning deity
-ism meaning a belief, position, attitude or act.

a- pertains to the word that follows it, so in the case of asymmetry, this word is defined as without symmetry, not an abject rejection of symmetry or a refusal to accept symmetry. Likewise, atheism is to be without belief in a deity, not a belief there are no deities, nor a refusal to accept there are deities. I've already provided you with the term anti-theism which the belief there are no deities.

I agree that the majority may think that atheism is a belief, but since when was truth decided by majority vote? Many people believe that mundane means boring, and unfortunately many dictionaries provide that definition, but nearly always alongside the true definition, 'of the earth'. Last time I checked, this planet is far from boring. Likewise with the word awful coming to be used as a negative term when it really means to be full of awe.

 

[lrkun]

atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief - inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

- lack of faith:

agnosticism - nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

-(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:

I'm just using the dictionary definition. If I made a mistake, blame the Oxford.

I do blame 'the Oxford' as do many others. Dictionary companies receive complaints every year for false definitions, especially atheism. I direct you to the etymology of the word:

a- meaning without or lack of
theos meaning deity
-ism meaning a belief, position, attitude or act.

a- pertains to the word that follows it, so in the case of asymmetry, this word is defined as without symmetry, not an abject rejection of symmetry or a refusal to accept symmetry. Likewise, atheism is to be without belief in a deity, not a belief there are no deities, nor a refusal to accept there are deities. I've already provided you with the term anti-theism which the belief there are no deities.

I agree that the majority may think that atheism is a belief, but since when was truth decided by majority vote? Many people believe that mundane means boring, and unfortunately many dictionaries provide that definition, but nearly always alongside the true definition, 'of the earth'. Last time I checked, this planet is far from boring. Likewise with the word awful coming to be used as a negative term when it really means to be full of awe.

Here's a nice rebuttal to my argument.



I hope the definitions get changed. Until then I'm inclined to accept what the dictionary provides.

atheos <-- sounds cool

 

[theatheistguy]

Here's a nice rebuttal to my argument.



I hope the definitions get changed. Until then I'm inclined to accept what the dictionary provides.

atheos <-- sounds cool

Thank you, but I feel I should ask, if you know the dictionary definition to be wrong, why do you still accept it?

And now for a parodical summation of the dictionary definition:

 

[Nautyskin]

Here's a nice rebuttal to my argument.

Yeah, because "I found one dictionary that said something, but I didn't look in any others, well I did but they didn't say what I wanted them to so I discarded them, and that dictionary agreed with me which means that I am right" is an argument.

Ahh awesomes :lol: :lol:

 

[lrkun]

Here's a nice rebuttal to my argument.

Yeah, because "I found one dictionary that said something, but I didn't look in any others, well I did but they didn't say what I wanted them to so I discarded them, and that dictionary agreed with me which means that I am right" is an argument.

Ahh awesomes :lol: :lol:

You have some issues. I've compared the definitions with respect to other dictionaries. I just value Oxford more and they use almost the same definitions.

 

[lrkun]

Here's a nice rebuttal to my argument.



I hope the definitions get changed. Until then I'm inclined to accept what the dictionary provides.

atheos <-- sounds cool

Thank you, but I feel I should ask, if you know the dictionary definition to be wrong, why do you still accept it?

And now for a parodical summation of the dictionary definition:

I never said it was wrong. What I said was, I hope that the dictionaries would change the definitions. As it stands, they have more authority than my own opinion on the matter.

-oOo-

If you analyse my answers, I usually base it on some accepted ground. I usually view issues like this as if I'm using a scale.

I don't consider myself an authority on the definitions of these terms, therefore I use existing references to support my arguments.

That picture above represents the scale with respect to the existence of a god.

For the sake of argument, the left one represents the atheists and the right one represents the theists.

When there is no proof supporting on either side. The scale remains balanced. Therefore, the agnostic view, represents that situation.

 

[retardedsociety]

Either people who claim to be agnostics don't understand they are agnostic atheists

I'm sure if you combine the term agnostic and atheist, you'll arrive at agnostic atheist. However that is not the case if one truly does not know whether god exists or not.
Nevertheless, if a person who is an agnostic decides to choose the position that gods don't exist, then it follows that he is no longer an agnostic but an atheist. Consequently, there are many urban terms and definitions with respect to atheism/atheists. I don't fully agree with them, because they are not yet in the dictionary, so that is why threads like this come to pass.

I use both terms to counter the theists constantly debate of atheism being the knowledge that there are no gods.

Agnostic Atheist means both the knowledge that one does not know if there is such a thing as a god, and atheist is to not believe in those unproven claims of gods.

Its like fairies, like atheists always use this analogy

As silly as a fairy sounds, one cannot know if there is such a thing in the universe, or there ever was, which is irrelevant, hence we do not believe in that nonsense.


I am also open to admit there is a god if such a thing ever comes about the real world, which is not something I wait for at all, but I do not dismiss anything 100%, I leave the god hypothesis at 1%

 

[lrkun]

I use both terms to counter the theists constantly debate of atheism being the knowledge that there are no gods.

Agnostic Atheist means both the knowledge that one does not know if there is such a thing as a god, and atheist is to not believe in those unproven claims of gods.

Its like fairies, like atheists always use this analogy

As silly as a fairy sounds, one cannot know if there is such a thing in the universe, or there ever was, which is irrelevant, hence we do not believe in that nonsense.


I am also open to admit there is a god if such a thing ever comes about the real world, which is not something I wait for at all, but I do not dismiss anything 100%, I leave the god hypothesis at 1%

You have a nice definition there.

 

[retardedsociety]

I use both terms to counter the theists constantly debate of atheism being the knowledge that there are no gods.

Agnostic Atheist means both the knowledge that one does not know if there is such a thing as a god, and atheist is to not believe in those unproven claims of gods.

Its like fairies, like atheists always use this analogy

As silly as a fairy sounds, one cannot know if there is such a thing in the universe, or there ever was, which is irrelevant, hence we do not believe in that nonsense.


I am also open to admit there is a god if such a thing ever comes about the real world, which is not something I wait for at all, but I do not dismiss anything 100%, I leave the god hypothesis at 1%

You have a nice definition there. So what's your opinion on the thread starter's claim that agnosticism is dishonest?

Its far too general but agnosticism is a logical position that I dare to say we all share, atheists and theists alike, so saying that generally an agnostic is dishonest is a false statement.

But as I mentioned, a friend of mine uses the term to even come as far as to say that one cannot choose to believe or not believe in something if one has no knowledge.

I cannot agree with that, if one has no reason to believe in something the logical position is to not believe.

People often bring out dark matter and dark energy, we may not know what it is, we may not see it, but its there, its an unknown factor in science but we know its there.

But god is something that only comes about religion with absolutely no outside references, no evidence, no nothing.

Aliens have more eye witness events than any religion claim in the world, and most of us don't believe in aliens cause the majority of the claims, pictures and videos are falsified.

But still, we are also unaware if there are really such things in the first place.


This is why when it comes to talk about religion and you say I am an agnostic you might as well say I am also an atheist.


If you choose to still believe in a god despite of no evidence, then you are an agnostic theist.


I usually just use the term atheist since agnosticism is a default position to the unknown.

 

[Nautyskin]

You have some issues.

That's a direct personal attack.

Reported.

 

[lrkun]

You have some issues.

That's a direct personal attack.

Reported.

Sure. Now, I wonder how they will consider your claim when they read it as a whole.

Here's a nice rebuttal to my argument.

Yeah, because "I found one dictionary that said something, but I didn't look in any others, well I did but they didn't say what I wanted them to so I discarded them, and that dictionary agreed with me which means that I am right" is an argument.

Ahh awesomes :lol: :lol:

You have some issues. I've compared the definitions with respect to other dictionaries. I just value Oxford more and they use almost the same definitions.

 

[theatheistguy]

I never said it was wrong. What I said was, I hope that the dictionaries would change the definitions. As it stands, they have more authority than my own opinion on the matter.

If you analyse my answers, I usually base it on some accepted ground. I usually view issues like this as if I'm using a scale.

This is a variation on an argument from authority. I've given you my basis for the correct definitions of these terms, Oxford has given you nothing. Granted, there may be more reason to trust a respected institution over a stranger, but that doesn't cut it. I have an argument, they have nothing.

That picture above represents the scale with respect to the existence of a god.

For the sake of argument, the left one represents the atheists and the right one represents the theists.

When there is no proof supporting on either side. The scale remains balanced. Therefore, the agnostic view, represents that situation.

No, no it really doesn't. I really thought you were getting this. One represents gnostic theism, the other anti-gnostic anti-theism. In a less extreme case, one represents theism, the other anti-theism. In both cases, a balanced or not completely tipped scale is a sign of agnostic atheism.

Again, knowledge and belief are two very different things and are not mutually exclusive.

 

[lrkun]

I never said it was wrong. What I said was, I hope that the dictionaries would change the definitions. As it stands, they have more authority than my own opinion on the matter.

If you analyse my answers, I usually base it on some accepted ground. I usually view issues like this as if I'm using a scale.

This is a variation on an argument from authority. I've given you my basis for the correct definitions of these terms, Oxford has given you nothing. Granted, there may be more reason to trust a respected institution over a stranger, but that doesn't cut it. I have an argument, they have nothing.

That picture above represents the scale with respect to the existence of a god.

For the sake of argument, the left one represents the atheists and the right one represents the theists.

When there is no proof supporting on either side. The scale remains balanced. Therefore, the agnostic view, represents that situation.

No, no it really doesn't. I really thought you were getting this. One represents gnostic theism, the other anti-gnostic anti-theism. In a less extreme case, one represents theism, the other anti-theism. In both cases, a balanced or not completely tipped scale is a sign of agnostic atheism.

Again, knowledge and belief are two very different things and are not mutually exclusive.

1. Actually Oxford has given me something, anyway I am not disregarding your opinions. I'm sticking to the reference book for now.


2. I don't get your second point (knowledge and belief thing). It doesn't make sense.

a. left is atheism. (if proof or evidence is provided then the scale tilts this way)
b. right is theism. (if proof or evidence is provided then the scale tilts this way)
c. default agnostic. (when there is the absence of proof or nothing is known - the scale isn't tipped on either side.)

This is a simple illustration of preponderance of evidence.

On the case of c, no conclusion can be made. If I tilt on the left or right without evidence or ground to back it up, then it will be in the realm of faith for either position.

The reason why I used the scale is because it's easier to visualize the situation and also the point with respect to the argument for ignorance.

 

[theatheistguy]

1. Actually Oxford has given me something, anyway I am not disregarding your opinions. I'm sticking to the reference book for now.

What arguments have they given you for their definitions?

2. I don't get your second point (knowledge and belief thing). It doesn't make sense.

a. left is atheism. (if proof or evidence is provided then the scale tilts this way)
b. right is theism. (if proof or evidence is provided then the scale tilts this way)
c. default agnostic. (when there is the absence of proof or nothing is known - the scale isn't tipped on either side.)

You can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. So your concept of the scale having agnosticism in the middle of atheism and theism is patently wrong.

This is a simple illustration of preponderance of evidence.

One can believe something, say the existence of a deity (theism), without any evidence, and one, by default, lacks a belief in something, say the existence of a deity (atheism), when no evidence is presented. A good example of this is new born babies, all of whom have been shown no evidence of a deity, nor evidence against a deity. Therefore they are neither theists, nor non-theists, they lack a belief either way, they are atheists.

 

[lrkun]

1. Actually Oxford has given me something, anyway I am not disregarding your opinions. I'm sticking to the reference book for now.

What arguments have they given you for their definitions?

2. I don't get your second point (knowledge and belief thing). It doesn't make sense.

a. left is atheism. (if proof or evidence is provided then the scale tilts this way)
b. right is theism. (if proof or evidence is provided then the scale tilts this way)
c. default agnostic. (when there is the absence of proof or nothing is known - the scale isn't tipped on either side.)

You can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. So your concept of the scale having agnosticism in the middle of atheism and theism is patently wrong.

This is a simple illustration of preponderance of evidence.

One can believe something, say the existence of a deity (theism), without any evidence, and one, by default, lacks a belief in something, say the existence of a deity (atheism), when no evidence is presented. A good example of this is new born babies, all of whom have been shown no evidence of a deity, nor evidence against a deity. Therefore they are neither theists, nor non-theists, they lack a belief either way, they are atheists.

1. I don't agree with you, but I can respect your opinion.


2. Your position is correct if we use your definition as the standard. However, I use the dictionary, because I don't wish to confuse people with respect to the definition of how it is used in general.


3. I prefer to choose a side when there is evidence. If there is none, I don't decide, I don't say that god exists or he does not exists, I prefer I don't know. Therefore when no evidence is presented the scale does not tilt in favor of the left or the right.

a. Claim - god exists
b. Claim - god does not exist
c. Claim - I don't know whether god exists or not.

4. The only thing I find dishonest about agnosticism is with respect to its second scenario. That nothing can be known with respect to a god/s existence. >.<