Agnostic.com

14 12

“Agnostics” who don’t understand Atheism.
Do you understand the difference between asserting knowledge vs belief?
Here’s an entertaining vid.

Will you repair your misconceptions, as David Mitchell should?

Mvtt 7 May 10
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

I’m past caring anymore. I’m too old for this game of semantics, and never ending angels dancing on the head of a pin arguments. Show me credible evidence that there’s a divine creator, and I will believe in god, but if you can’t, then I can’t believe that one exists. The laws of probability tell me that if after 4.5 billion years of known life on this planet, some evidence of a god hasn’t emerged by now, it is unlikely that it ever will. I don’t know or care what label that means others may attach to me, I just know I’m a non-believer.

2

As an agnostic, it is easy to understand why people identify as absolute atheists. I’ll not argue with them, because as an agnostic, I recognize that they could be right, “there are no gods”. The thing is that, as an agnostic, I say there is no evidence to prove it either way. But I also must agree that there are PROBABLY no gods, and that atheistic “belief” is closer to my conclusion than theist and I respect that belief as valid for those who carry it. That said, I DO recognize the evangelism in many...not all...atheists, and find it just as disagreeable as theism. I say, there are few absolutes, so I cannot subscribe to absolute atheism.

An atheist need not make the claim at all. Don’t believe in gods? You’re an atheist. It’s that simple.

2

WTF is that on his chin?

1

I love the way he breaks it down and cracked up laughing when he said that he had many cups of tea. I have always said I am an atheist.

1

Atheism is illogical. The video does nothing to change the fact.

Assertion of knowledge versus belief:

Bob explains label: We are gods.

Antibob receives from Bob's knowledge of labeling. Antibob now holds knowledge of labeling rejecting to accept it as true. Antibob says we can only be labeled as human, mechanic, teacher etc. but it is not truth to label us as god. Antibob's rational is that anything could be labeled as a God, thus nothing should be labeled as a God.

Bob says: This does not change the fact of usage that things and people are labeled as Gods.
'80s Rock Gods: Then and Now
[msn.com]

Antibob says: OMG

Bob plays a song from the rock gods:

Word Level 8 May 11, 2021

When you straw man atheists you commit a logical fallacy. The conversation can’t continue when you do that. This is why you get very little replies and /or blocked.
Try a more logical and intellectually honest approach.

@Mvtt that might work. I don't typically use a dialogue scenario. Do you have some suggestion for writing a dialogue scenario with out it seemingly stereotyping or strawmaning an illogical atheist?

@Word assume first the broad definition of atheist. (Non believer, no claim). If a claim of “no god” arises from the atheist, only then is it safe to assume the narrow Stanford definition. You’ll soon discover most atheists will not make that claim. Because the vast majority, are agnostic atheists and don’t claim knowledge. That would indeed be illogical/ unreasonable.

@Mvtt you say,"...only then is it safe to assume the narrow Stanford definition. You’ll soon discover most atheists will not make that claim."

Is this not a strawman stereotype that you are posing?

@Mvtt the Stamford narrow definition is like the starting point of tree branches. Atheism, atheist by what ever branch of definition is still connected back to the "truck" or starting point from the roots.

@Word the starting point for an atheist, is non belief in the theist claim. We are all unconvinced. We are all “without god”. We are “without theos”.
We have missed the so-called revelation.
It is incorrect to assume any atheist is of the position that we “know” there is no god. That is a further branch, to use your analogy. (Into gnostic, which is very rare in practice)
You will find atheists to stop there. Because we cannot know. We are all without, and that is enough to be atheist.
Steel man your dialogue from the starting point that you are very most likely talking to an agnostic atheist.
The straw man comes when you assume an extreme branch of gnosticism which is an extreme minority.
That will assist dialogue.

@Mvtt the agnostic definition grafted in or made as an addition with attempts to make the atheist branch appear logical.

@Mvtt you say,"the starting point for an atheist, is non belief in the theist claim. We are all unconvinced. We are all “without god”. We are “without theos”."

Let's us start a scenario: I am knowledge holder of the information claim. Before I give you any information, you are without information of the knowledge claim. You are not even an atheist because you start without having information to consider.

The knowledge of information is: "We are gods, we exist".

Now you start your branch, is it atheist, agnostic or where do you branch off?

Remember, you are not claiming, in this scenario you have no prior or preconceived opinions or beliefs haven't been shared with you.

@Word it is both agnostic and atheist. Without knowledge and without belief in theological claims.

@Mvtt so, isolated people from any modern or historic knowledge of anything "god" , they are atheist and agnostic and they don't even know they are atheist or agnostic?

@Word by definition yes.

@Mvtt atheist and agnostic has knowledge of some type of claim. It is not accepting the claim as true that defines atheist and it is not knowing directly that defines the agnostic.

@Mvtt prior to being introduced to a claim, a person would simply be ignorant or without knowledge of the claim. Atheist and agnostic has taken some type of mental decision action based on claim information.

@Word

@Word no claim required.

@Mvtt belief means accept as true. In order to have a belief or reject as false there must be the claim information to have a consideration if it is true or not.

If you have no claim information in the first place, how do you "lack" or ignore calling it true? To ignore is an action towards some thing. If there is no thing to ignore, there is no 'lacking" action that could take place.

@Mvtt it is obvious some that has no knowledge of god thingies is going to, by any means, say, God thingie is true or false.

@Mvtt I don't know anything about what you are currently thinking but I lack belief in your thoughts right now. Right?

@Mvtt lack of Disbelief and lack of belief.

Lack of disbelief, lacking in saying something is false.

Lack of belief. lacking in saying something is true.

A person that has never heard of god thingies is not specifically atheist. Just as you try to say they are atheist because of lack of belief it can also be said they would have a lack of disbelief. They are in no knowledge to lack either way calling it true or false.

1

More like, when will atheists understand Agnostics?
Atheism is a belief system, just like theism. Agnosticism is the rejection of belief systems.
Divine entities are easy to reject, 'god' as a general term is not.
'God' could mean anything, including concepts for which there are no names or, for that matter, concepts we haven't even thought of yet.
As such, the word cannot be disproven, because as our knowledge grows, plausible definitions keep being discarded, modified, transformed or invented.
Of course 'Jesus' and 'Allah,' for example, are antiquated, obsolete definitions of 'god.'
The jury is still out, and may ALWAYS be out, on 'god' as a general concept.

Atheism is a belief system like bald is a hairstyle. I do not believe in gods. Now tell me what my belief system is.

Exactly. I moved from a position in which I claimed no God existed to one, called Zen Taoism, which posits that each of us are God because we have created this illusion. We created it and we can control how much of it affects us, or how. Since the idea that I am my own God does acknowledge a created Universe then I can’t say that I’m an Atheist any longer. The idea of dogmatic Gods, or Saints, is not one I accept, however, so can’t say that I’m a Theist. Zen is a pickle for this conversation but, for those who don’t accept it, Taoism offers no punishment (other than suffering neurotic conditions) for not practicing it. That should be amenable to all but many Atheists still get upset and stomp around. Oh well.

I think you are a bit confused. "god" lower case "G" can mean anything you want . "God" with a capital is the sole or supreme being and the object of worship in monotheistic religions

@DenoPenno That there is no god or gods, of course, regardless of the meaning applied to the word. No matter how vague or generalized that meaning.

@DenoPenno, @rainmanjr NOW we're finally getting closer to the crux of the matter. Would you say Tao Buddhism is in a sense an 'agnostic religion?'

@Storm1752 I have no pretended belief and a great many things are truly answered with a simple "I do not know." I am not blending myself with other systems or belief, nor do I want to. I couldn't give a rat's ass about discussing whether someone does or does not burn in hell. What hell? How would I know?

2

The presentation is irrefutable.

2

We are not talking about two uniformly understood thought systems. Both groups are stratified in important ways. The good news is our world views are more in agreement than disagreement. But there are specific issues where one thought system remains rational and the other falters.

2

There are different kinds of atheism.
I do assert, "There are no gods", it's easy for me to do so. Man created the concept and stories of gods,made up being the key factor, so it's fiction 100%.

Leelu Level 7 May 11, 2021
5
  1. The claim that atheists state no god exists is an evangelical lie told so often it is recorded in some dictionaries. This is a fondly embraced lie the evangelicals use to rationalize their other hate-speech against related groups.

  2. Another lie that Christians love to tell is how they were atheists growing up, and then magically found Jesus. This is where they also get to tell the first lie, which proves they are lying because if they had been atheists, they would know the correct definition. Examples of this are C.S. Lewis and Francis Collins.

  3. A huge amount of weird physics leave lots of questions hanging. While the existence of a god could give an answer, such an answer is meaningless; one may as well say an alien or a unicorn did it. That being said, what is known with high confidence is that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist. That particular entity suffers from extremely good arguments based on science and cultural anthropology (1. science: humans evolved, ergo no original sin to be forgiven or sacrificed for; 2. Biblical content is badly lacking moral validity or competence and readily traceable to prior texts)

9

This continuous argument between agnostics and atheists is tiring, boring, and l don't believe most of us here really care anymore. We are all here. Most of us seem to share the same feelings about religions. That is all that really matters to me.

There should be no argument 🙂

There shouldn't, but it is an on again off again thing that has been going on for the over three years I have been here, primarily stoked by the Atheists.

@Sticks48 until there is an understanding of concepts, there will be words to be said. In the name of empathy.
No one likes being misunderstood.

@Mvtt It would be great if human beings actually behaved that way, but they don't and never have. Some people just like to shit in the punch bowl. It is as useless an argument as the my God is better than your God argument. It never goes anywhere and doesn't mean anything, or change anything. It certainly hasn't changed anything on this site in the three years I have been here. Both sides have explained their points of view, and that is all that need be.

@Sticks48 I guess at some point one does conclude that some personalities are not able to be reasoned with. Some are though. So why not try. I’m a glass half full kind of guy and lean toward giving people benefit of doubt.

@Mvtt I like individuals. I don't care for humanity in general. There is nothing in the recorded history of human beings that leads me to believe people will ever change. 49% of people have double digit IQs and are easily led by the greedy and ruthless.

7

I hate when people attempt to stuff me into a pigeonhole! You?

Especially pigeon holes made of straw.
Did you watch the vid?

@Mvtt i did,but with the preconception of "oh goody, here comes another entitled asshat telling me what to think & how to think about it" as is my outlook on such things......at it's core it is true to its' premise.

3

Yes, excellent. He put it so well at the beginning: that atheism is simply the assertion that theists have not met their burden of proof for any god, so no belief is possible. I don't know why many agnostics just don't get this. Also, until a few years ago I accepted that an agnostic position was what they didn't know or weren't sure about the existence of any god. I had no problem with that view, even though it wasn't my position. Then I began to to hear from agnostics that atheism is a faith based position, that it was irrational, that agnosticism-- essentially a 'I don't know' position -- was somehow a more superior position, and that atheism was as bad as theism, and that kick in the guts shocked me. Moreover, I've learnt that some people who call themselves agnostic are little more than pseudo religionists and new age religious types dressed in agnostic sheep clothing, with a much greater grind against atheism than theism. Some, not all. So, now I'm much more wary about people who call themselves agnostic until I know exactly what their agnosticism means.

Thanks for the upload.

Welcome 🙂

4

To some degree this seems like little more than semantics. I consider myself an atheist not because of any absolute certainty about the existence of any gods but rather as a complete abstinence of belief in gods or participation in any religious or supernatural beliefs.

But David Mitchell's view seems to imply that proof of non-existence is needed. Is that a requirement for everything? Should we be agnostic about unicorns, dragons, and leprechauns too? Of course not. We casually dismiss these as silly fiction. So, why can't the same be done with gods?

I find that a self defined “agnostic” who does not believe in gods, yet also refuse to admit their atheist position, does not understand words and their meaning. It must be difficult to relate to other humans that way. I hope this video helps such a person empathise.

@Mvtt In short, you want Agnostics to renounce their positions and become atheists! Maybe there's some kind of 'conversion therapy' for that.

@Storm1752 "why can't we all just get along?" Oh wait,, maybe we could if asshats could stop stirring this rancid pot.....

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:595724
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.