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.

@redredred

Do you hold a belief that a god exists?

@Pikachu Not really. 🤣

@Pikachu I hold no interest in the question any more than I care about Putin’s family. The matter has at least a hundred variants and is in no sense binary.

@redredred

Your interest or lack thereof is relevant only to whether or not you carry on this discussion.

My contention is that one can be a theist- either gnostic or agnostic, or an atheist- either gnostic or agnostic.
If this condition is in no way binary, what alternate position do you propose?

@Pikachu

1) that there once was a god but there is no longer
2) that there is an entity other than a god but we have no conceptual basis for understanding it better
3) that there will be a god someday
4) that there are component entities that singly are not gods but can act in concert to function as a god
5) shroedingers god that exists only if we don’t believe in it

Do I have to go on? Surrender your pet theory; the question is not binary.

@redredred

It seems to me you made the same two mistakes over and over here.
When i point them out i think you'll see that your propositions are insufficient defeaters for the binary condition of belief in gods.
Let's see!

1) So you're a theist who believes that a god is real but that it has since died. You believe in a dead god.

2) So you seem either to be describing a god but declaring that it is not or you're describing a being which is not a god. In the former case you're just a theist with an odd god and in the latter you're an atheist who believes in...i dunno, galaxy brain thought forms or whatever lol

3) So you believe that gods are a real thing, just that they have not yet begun to exist. This fails for the same reason as the dead god proposition. You believe that gods are real even if they are not extant concurrently with you.

4) So i'm still not convinced that simply declaring that the god thing you are describing is not a god is sufficient to distinguish it from a god...but it doesn't matter because you're still falling into the binary.
If this composite of beings which function like a god should be counted as a god then you're a theist. If it should not be considered a god...then you're still an just an atheist believing in your colony superbeing.

5) lol my dude...you just named another kind of god....
One with stranger properties and likely a challenging one to worship but another kind of god none the less.

You have failed to produce an alternate position to the binary scenario.
You have managed only (to my mind) describe different kinds of gods but even if they are not to be considered gods...that leaves a person who believes in them as an atheist. I think you forgot that there exist atheist religions like Raëlism.

lol harder than you thought, eh?



If you think you can do better on the second round😉

@Pikachu I think all your point are nonsense and you are wedded to a concept of binary thought you think makes you look clever. It’s frathouse bullshitting and no one over the age of 22 reading it agrees with your hairsplitting nonsense. We all took philosophy 101. Get over it.

@redredred


Gosh, do you?
Well I think if you could demonstrate that my points were nonsense then you would have done so.
I think that you realize the binary concept of belief is harder to defeat than you anticipated.
I think that right now your frustration is causing you to address what you think of me rather than explaining why my deconstruction of your poorly thought out alternatives is invalid🙂

Don't take it too hard.
I've spent time thinking about this and evidently you have not.
I encourage you to put in the effort and come back to me with a more reasoned rebuttal if you care to.

Better luck next time, hmm?✌️

@Pikachu you have a fixation on this idea don’t you? You have yet to counter my comments about Putin’s brother because it’s a simple, self-evident counter to your pet hypothesis.

Try this. A child raised in isolation with parents who never mention god or religion has what opinion about god? Does he believe in god or does he believe there is no god? Or does he simply not know and has no opinion?

The existence of that one individual and his mindset invalidates your binary characterization of the question.

@redredred


Another softball. Thanks lol
He lacks a belief in a god and is therefore an atheist because unless one holds a belief that a god exists then one is an atheist.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.



What does your lack of knowledge about whether or not Putin has a brother have to do with whether or not someone can be purely agnostic with regard to a god?
I'm sorry if the context has somehow escaped you to this point but we are discussing the existence of gods and one's associated beliefs.

@Pikachu So you cannot go from the specific to the general, noted.

The child is neither an atheist who proactively believes there is no god nor is he religious. He is the very definition of an agnostic, “a-gnosis” he doesn’t know. Your thesis is wrong, the question is non-binary.

@redredred

I'm quite happy to admit that i'm arguing a specific point. If you think that scores you any points then you're welcome to them lol.

But on this subject, the subject of the thread which i made and you engaged in...you still haven't a leg to stand on...which you've realized and which is why you attempted to broaden the scope of the discussion to include a point i am not and have not attempted to make.
You're trying to move the goalposts, bud.
Not gonna happen😉


lol my dude....you can't just ignore definitions because they're inconvenient to your argument.
An atheist is not only someone who actively disbelieves that gods exist but includes a person who simply lacks a belief in a god; a condition which includes your baby's first counter example of a child which has not been taught about gods.

To attempt to draw your focus:

atheist
noun [ C ] RELIGION
UK /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ US /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/

someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist:

atheist
noun
athe·ist | \ ˈā-thē-ist \
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism


a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


Do you see the pattern there?
Where a nuance is described, it is between passive non-belief and active non-belief but an atheist is still either someone who does not believe in a god or who disbelieves in a god.
Both the passive and the active non-belief in a god denote an atheist.


Since you have yet to produce a valid alternate position ...i'ma just say Naahhhhh
lol

@Pikachu Do the natives of North Sentinel Island believe in Santa Claus or disbelieve? Or are they agnostic?

@redredred

Is Santa Claus a god?🤔

@Pikachu Again, your inability to go from the specific to the general us not complimentary to your intelligence. At its base the question under discussion is the nature of belief. For that question the entity can be Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, god, or Peter Pan.

@redredred

Oh odds and bodkins! Just gosh darn my determination to stick to the topic i originally set out! Ohhhh I must look a terrible lummox!😓



lol joking aside...


Sure. In the context of gnosticism/agnosticism the nature of the belief is one of conviction in unequivocal knowledge or the conviction that such knowledge is impossible. In the context of this discussion, that refers to the belief in gods.
The nature of your belief is a description of what kind of belief you have...and so far you have failed to demonstrate with any argument or example that there exists a third option between theist and atheist.

So is there third option when describing a belief in a god.?
In the context of the question of gods, can you produce a legitimate third option to theist and atheist?
Because so far your propositions have been conspicuously flawed and easily deconstructed.

I suspect that realization is what has galvanized you to repeated attempts to change the focus of the discussion.
To address your goal post moving criticisms briefly: I think that agnosticism is a thing in so far as it describes a lack of knowledge or a belief that knowledge cannot be achieved but in the context of belief in gods, that position is merely an adjective which describes the noun of belief/disbelief.
But perhaps i can make my point on this subject more succinctly with a couple of questions i've asked a number of times now but which every objector has so far shied away from answering:

1) Can you be a theist if you cannot honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?
2) Can an "agnostic" honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?