A question for Agnostics...

It really depends on the specific claims being made. If we are talking about a SPECIFIC deity claim, then on some of those I'm a strong agnostic or even a strong atheist. If we are talking about ANY AND ALL deity claims, then I'm a weak agnostic.

 

well said and an agnostic that takes neither the atheist nor theist position uses 100% scientific method has no interdependence on faith. Weak or strong is generally not a big consideration in any court outside of capital offenses. If you say you are barely an atheist a court would simply put a checkmark in the atheist box.

 

agnostic, theist, and atheist in philosophy all carry exclusive once meanings.

Once you profess 'one' diety you are theist, once you profess no dieties, you are atheist, either will bump you off of agnostic in a 'same sense' data set.

 

Nothing you've said actually addresses my statement. If you would like to actually address what I've said, cool beans. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in your usual semantic games.

 

Nothing at all, just an explanation how the bulk of the academic world sorts it out, believe what you like.

 

I encourage you to actually look into how the "bulk of the academic world" actually does categorize this. Your private designations are your own, and they aren't shared by academics. So, I'll repeat: nothing you've said actually addresses my statement and you are resorting to your usual semantic garbage.

 

I can't keep up with your constantly changing arguments. Elsewhere you have claimed that you are agnostic . . . and elsewhere you have claimed that everyone (including yourself) is a theist. Now you say you can't be both. Which is it? How many more years before you actually provide an answer? I've asked this same question more than once. You run away every time. Are you capable of being honest now?

 

But you know that is false since I posted citations and my name is not at the bottom of them. Why do you find subterfuge necessary?

Wow, still cant quote me. NEVER HAPPENED.

Not too much to see here folks, no arguments made, just wound licking and soap box ranting

 

It's difficult for me to answer your question because I don't necessarily agree with Wikipedia's definitions.

It's always been my view and understanding of Agnosticism that the Agnostic accepts that he/she is incapable of knowing and proving whether there is a God or not. Perhaps, some Agnostics may lean towards belief or disbelief, but an Agnostic will not profess a conviction of God's existence or non-existence.

 

That was my understanding of the word as well, until I discovered others here. And I think yours is the most useful meaning of the term, since it adds new information aside from the question of theism (belief). It allows you to be more descriptive and say, for example that you believe in God because you have faith, but you don't think it possible to know for sure (agnostic theist).

 

I suppose its going to depend on what you mean by 'conviction' By definition, those agnostics that profess to be agnostic atheists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism, and those agnostics that profess to be agnostic theists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism will express their views on both knowledge and belief. Whether they qualify it with the softer verb of 'lean' and subsequent preposition ' towards' is a personal choice. If they decide not to profess, because they want to stay 'in the closet' about real views is yet another choice.

I know I lean towards agnostic atheism based on whether I expect positive assertions like 'there is a god' to meet a burden of evidentiary proof, or whether I expect the alternative assertion 'there is no god' to meet that burden. My strong and consistent tendency is the former.

 

I gave you a like for the bolded and because they can be more skeptical about one side or the other, but as long as they do not take either side they are agnostic. Nice post man!

 

They can take any side they like on the question of belief, and any side they like on the subject of knowledge and they can combine the two as they like to answer both questions - or not as they choose.

 

thats very true! All the way to their new home in a rubber room

 

Are you denying that you have claimed that:
1) Theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive or . . .
2) Everyone has a god.

Which is it? You've said both, as you are well aware. But let's see where you land today on which of these mutually exclusive claims you want to stand behind.

 

He will never answer that. Each and every time I have pointed out his conflicting statements he responds demanding he didn't say something, not specifying what. Then when asked which he didn't say and what his actual view is, he never ever responds, and dodges with vitriol. It's his funny game he plays. I have seen him play the same game with yourself and others.

 

You are making claims you did not quote, they have already been files in trash bin 13, sorry.

I do recall stating that Atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Neoatheists were so unhappy about that, they had their hopes set on evangelizing agnostics into their religion of irrational delusion.

So you need to jog my memory with a quote so I know what crimes against neoatheism you are trying to accuse me of.

Did you ever figure out that the model is not the physical universe? How about the difference between a reservoir and a swimming pool? Square those away yet?

Everyone already knows that any reference directed at me by the bird is bullshit, just trying desperately to refloat all the titanic (debunked) nonsense in his posts.

 

Are you trolling so much that you are having a hard time keeping track of what you have written before and what you haven't, so you need people to quote it for you? You can't simply tell us what you think is so, what you stand by, and what you don't think is so, because you know it may conflict with what you said earlier because you are making this crap up as you go? Is that it?

Yes, you wrote that. You also wrote that there is no difference between not believing God exists and believing God does not exist. And you have thus far refused to address the contradiction from all those statments. And you feigned confusion when I said the difference between not believing God exists and believing God does not exist is why you can call yourself agnostic by your understanding of these words.

 

Um... nope I dont recall any of that

All posts/accusations/claims without quotes are lies, you did not quote, therefore the above post has to be considered a lie.

you made that bed for yourself, hope you enjoy sleeping in it.


nothing to see here folks just misleading nonsense accusations

 

Of course you don't. You also don't know your name unless we quote it for you eh? And you won't tell us your current view on anything, demanding we quote what you said before, so you can remember the lies you told earlier and not contradict yourself yet again. We see your game.

 

You don't recall claiming that even atheists have a god: that they worship the "god of lacking"? I call BS. Be honest.

 

I exposed yours

 

Sorry, if it wasnt necessary for me to wade through so much grammatically defective bird **** in these threads it would be easier to remember. I do remember handing you your butt on eisyweene and your version of the holocaust, 6million LMAO, I also remember pointing out that atheist and agnostic are functionally exclusive, and fyi there is nothing stopping an atheist from worshiping a god since everyone has a religion after all, so that position would not be to hard to defend, so is there a point in there somewhere that you expect a response to?

 

If you can't remember your own positions, you need to do some self-reflection. There's a big problem if I remember your positions more than you do. You didn't just say that atheists COULD worship a god (which is self-defeating given the definitions you've offered for atheism), you claimed that EVERYONE had a god. By the way, I know you can't answer this, but you just argued that atheism and theism aren't mutually exclusive . . . so how can atheism and agnosticism be mutually exclusive?

And I agree that your position on that is just as unhinged from reality as your physics denialism and your Holocaust denialism.

 

Perfect example why you need to quote, that is false, a typical misrepresentation. You conveniently overlook ron hatch, the guy who designed gps refinements because weeners relativity did not work..

Perfect example why you need to quote, that is false, a typical misrepresentation.
I always ask which holohoax, ermm I mean caust?
Too many to keep track of.

My position is based on nuances stated in the post I respond to, nuances certain neoatheists make it a point to ignore so they can misrepresent me, its SOP.

It is a big problem because you remember your interpretation of my position or the propaganda you use, not the actual meaning of what I said.

I can rationally see that based on my extensive education on the subject.

Incorrect conclusion, ie not my point, ie you do not understand.
Like I just said, based on MY extensive education on the subject.
I said nothing about you understanding it, and even if you did the likelihood you or any other neaotheist hell bent on evangelizing their psuedo-reason/logic would acknowledge its validity is zero