PSA: There's no such thing as an "Agnostic". You are either a Theist or an Atheist. You either believe that a god exists or you don't. It's binary.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
Your logic is circular, comrade. And you are intentionally asserting a lack of belief by definition makes one agnostic. But that is not the definition of an agnostic.
There are many things I don’t happen to have a belief about. That does not make me an agnostic about them.
There are many things I don’t happen to have a belief about. That does not make me an agnostic about them.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@Pikachu Your proof is your conclusion.
@Fukfacewillie
Well that describes a circular argument but i'm not sure how it applies to what i've said here.
Can you be more specific?
Well that describes a circular argument but i'm not sure how it applies to what i've said here.
Can you be more specific?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@Pikachu I do understand your epistemological distinction between belief and knowledge. By one definition, all atheists are agnostics in order to maintain their “atheism.” If an atheist says they know there is no God, they are allowing for an error, and possibly making a metaphysical assertion. An atheist should be loath to make metaphysical assertions.
If an atheist says they don’t believe there is a God, then they are not asserting a truth statement that can logically be disproven.
Aka, the impossibility of disproving a negative.
If an atheist says they don’t believe there is a God, then they are not asserting a truth statement that can logically be disproven.
Aka, the impossibility of disproving a negative.
@Fukfacewillie
My assertion is indeed that one either believes in a god or not.
My proof is that there is no alternate position of belief, only a differing position of knowledge.
My assertion is indeed that one either believes in a god or not.
My proof is that there is no alternate position of belief, only a differing position of knowledge.
@Fukfacewillie
Well no, i wouldn't apply the label on the basis that they can or cannot make arguments that a god exists.
I can take both positions but what i believe makes me an atheist.
My contention is that one can be a theist- either gnostic or agnostic, or an atheist- either gnostic or agnostic.
What alternate position do you propose?
You would call this person an atheist.
Well no, i wouldn't apply the label on the basis that they can or cannot make arguments that a god exists.
I can take both positions but what i believe makes me an atheist.
My contention is that one can be a theist- either gnostic or agnostic, or an atheist- either gnostic or agnostic.
What alternate position do you propose?
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@Pikachu I don't follow this: an atheist is someone who cannot make arguments that a god exists?
Do you mean by making such an argument they lose their status as an atheist because for the time they are making the argument they are no longer maintaining the belief there is no God?
I think your grid makes more sense because you are separating knowledge from belief. Except I would deny anyone can really make a knowledge statement about the existence of God. Well, maybe a schizophrenic. 🤭
Do you mean by making such an argument they lose their status as an atheist because for the time they are making the argument they are no longer maintaining the belief there is no God?
I think your grid makes more sense because you are separating knowledge from belief. Except I would deny anyone can really make a knowledge statement about the existence of God. Well, maybe a schizophrenic. 🤭
@Fukfacewillie
No.
Sorry, maybe i was unclear.
I said that while i am capable of recognizing and making arguments on the existence of a god in either direction, it is my belief that there are no gods which makes me an atheist.
It is belief which defines the theist or the atheist.
It is knowledge with makes them either gnostic or agnostic.
Therefore, whether or not one claims to know that a god does not exist, if they do not profess a believe that a god does exist then they are unavoidably an atheist.
Similarly, whether or not someone claims to know that a god exists, if they hold a belief that a god does exist then they are a theist.
I think someone else mentioned it here: Consider theist/atheist as a noun and gnostic/agnostic as an adjective.
an atheist is someone who cannot make arguments that a god exists?
No.
Sorry, maybe i was unclear.
I said that while i am capable of recognizing and making arguments on the existence of a god in either direction, it is my belief that there are no gods which makes me an atheist.
It is belief which defines the theist or the atheist.
It is knowledge with makes them either gnostic or agnostic.
Therefore, whether or not one claims to know that a god does not exist, if they do not profess a believe that a god does exist then they are unavoidably an atheist.
Similarly, whether or not someone claims to know that a god exists, if they hold a belief that a god does exist then they are a theist.
I think someone else mentioned it here: Consider theist/atheist as a noun and gnostic/agnostic as an adjective.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@Pikachu Yes, it's when we get to knowledge that things get messy.
"It is knowledge with makes them either gnostic or agnostic." I deny anyone can have such knowledge lest I would have to have the same knowledge, which I do not, and what would I do if two people had different knowledges?
lol, off to a Zoom meeting. Thanks for the post...fun to think about.
"It is knowledge with makes them either gnostic or agnostic." I deny anyone can have such knowledge lest I would have to have the same knowledge, which I do not, and what would I do if two people had different knowledges?
lol, off to a Zoom meeting. Thanks for the post...fun to think about.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@Pikachu Couple of things if I may. We need to account for the subjective as well. Namely, the gnostic theist is wrong. Not whether there is God, we don’t know, but the gnostic theist is incorrect. She can’t know, for if we accept she knows, then we need to agree with her.
As for the gnostic atheist, can’t she make a credible argument where belief approaches knowledge? I assume your preference for the gnostic theist is based on the concept of faith. Which, as far as I know, is a particularly Christian idea, and is impervious to logic.
Shouldn’t empiricism be considered superior to faith? I am assuming here you are not sympathetic to intelligent design.
As for the gnostic atheist, can’t she make a credible argument where belief approaches knowledge? I assume your preference for the gnostic theist is based on the concept of faith. Which, as far as I know, is a particularly Christian idea, and is impervious to logic.
Shouldn’t empiricism be considered superior to faith? I am assuming here you are not sympathetic to intelligent design.
@Fukfacewillie
I think you can make very good arguments to be convinced that gods do not exist but that by the very nature of the entities under discussion, you can never know that for sure. So i think the gnostic atheist is ultimately unjustified in their claim to know.
The gnostic theist on the other hand, i believe can be justified. I don't think they're right but i think they can be justified because of things like divine revelation, ecstatic visions, miraculous signs etc.
It seems to me that these things by the nature of religious belief are sufficient to justify to the faithful experiencer that knowledge has been revealed to them.
And no, i'm not a believer in intelligent design.
I think you can make very good arguments to be convinced that gods do not exist but that by the very nature of the entities under discussion, you can never know that for sure. So i think the gnostic atheist is ultimately unjustified in their claim to know.
The gnostic theist on the other hand, i believe can be justified. I don't think they're right but i think they can be justified because of things like divine revelation, ecstatic visions, miraculous signs etc.
It seems to me that these things by the nature of religious belief are sufficient to justify to the faithful experiencer that knowledge has been revealed to them.
And no, i'm not a believer in intelligent design.