Poll: What best describes those agnostic about God
This poll is closed.
Gutless Atheists 8.33% 2 8.33%
Dreamers 0% 0 0%
Off track and annoying 4.17% 1 4.17%
Deeper Thinkers 8.33% 2 8.33%
Other? 75.00% 18 75.00%
Uneducated 4.17% 1 4.17%
Total 24 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 10:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. it's not. Your analogy differentiates two sets of beliefs, not belief and non-belief.

In your analogy there would end up being the same number of belief/non-belief positions involved. You're just pretending that people who believe "no black" or claim to know "no black" wouldn't exist.

b = belief
~b = no belief
k = knowledge
~k = ~knowledge
x = god, odd, or black
~x = no god, not odd, or no black

Do you believe the claim X?
Do you believe the claim ~X?
Do you claim to know X?
Do you claim to know ~X?

YNYN (b:x|~b:~x|k:x|~k:~x) = theo-gnostic, odd-gnostic, black-gnostic
YNNN (b:x|~b:~x|~k:x|~k:~x) = the-ist, odd-ist, black-ist
NNNN (~b:x|~b:~x|~k:x|~k:~x) = ?
NYNN (~b:x|b:~x|~k:x|~k:~x) = athe-ist, even-ist, ablack-ist
NYNY (~b:x|b:~x|~k:x|k:~x) = atheo-gnostic, even-gnostic, ablack-gnostic

agnostic = broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Why doesn't "agnostic" best describe the middle position there, in any scenario?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 10:20 AM)3DJ Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 10:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  I do not understand your distinction between ablack-ist and a-blackist.

ablack-ist = someone who believes "no black"
a-blackist = not a blackist

An amoralist is amoral-ist (someone who believes we are without morals) not a-moralist (not a moralist). The root word is "amoral" with an "ist" or "ism" suffixes.

Just like the root word for both atheist and atheism is "atheos" with the suffixes attached, rather than the root words being "theist" and "theism" with an "a" attached.

No, the root words 'theist' and 'theism'. The 'a' modifies that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 10:45 AM)3DJ Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 10:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. it's not. Your analogy differentiates two sets of beliefs, not belief and non-belief.

In your analogy there would end up being the same number of belief/non-belief positions involved. You're just pretending that people who believe "no black" or claim to know "no black" wouldn't exist.

b = belief
~b = no belief
k = knowledge
~k = ~knowledge
x = god, odd, or black
~x = no god, not odd, or no black

Do you believe the claim X?
Do you believe the claim ~X?
Do you claim to know X?
Do you claim to know ~X?

YNYN (b:x|~b:~x|k:x|~k:~x) = theo-gnostic, odd-gnostic, black-gnostic
YNNN (b:x|~b:~x|~k:x|~k:~x) = the-ist, odd-ist, black-ist
NNNN (~b:x|~b:~x|~k:x|~k:~x) = ?
NYNN (~b:x|b:~x|~k:x|~k:~x) = athe-ist, even-ist, ablack-ist
NYNY (~b:x|b:~x|~k:x|k:~x) = atheo-gnostic, even-gnostic, ablack-gnostic

agnostic = broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Why doesn't "agnostic" best describe the middle position there, in any scenario?

Most here are agnostic atheists. We don't claim there is no god, just that we don't have a belief that there is one.

[Image: agnostic-v-gnostic-v-atheist-v-theist.png]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 11:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Most here are agnostic atheists. We don't claim there is no god, just that we don't have a belief that there is one.

The broad definition of "agnostic" describes a specific position of non belief. The narrow definition of "atheist" describes a specific position of belief. The broad definition of "atheist" and narrow definition of "agnostic" don't even describe a specific position, when used together.

Those 2 axis, 4 position, models are flawed. The "gnostic atheist" introduces the counter claim "no gods exist", but no belief question is asked about that counter claim. There are "agnostic weak/negative atheists", who have no belief. There are "agnostic strong/positive atheists" who believe "no gods exist", but don't claim to know it. Just "agnostic atheist" says nothing much, to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the root words 'theist' and 'theism'. The 'a' modifies that.

No. The root word is "atheos". That's just a fact.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

^The French added the "iste" to the already created Greek word "atheos" in the 16th century.

theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (see theo-) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

^The English did the same to the word "theos", almost a full century later. There was no words "theist" and "theism" to add an "a" to.

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?'" ~ Antony Flew, 1984
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 12:00 PM)3DJ Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 11:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Most here are agnostic atheists. We don't claim there is no god, just that we don't have a belief that there is one.

The broad definition of "agnostic" describes a specific position of non belief. The narrow definition of "atheist" describes a specific position of belief. The broad definition of "atheist" and narrow definition of "agnostic" don't even describe a specific position, when used together.

Those 2 axis, 4 position, models are flawed. The "gnostic atheist" introduces the counter claim "no gods exist", but no belief question is asked about that counter claim. There are "agnostic weak/negative atheists", who have no belief. There are "agnostic strong/positive atheists" who believe "no gods exist", but don't claim to know it. Just "agnostic atheist" says nothing much, to me.

Then you are not trying very hard. The definition is quite clear.

I am an agnostic atheist. I make no claim about the existence of gods, I have simply rejected all god claims so far proffered as being unevidenced.

Further, there appears to me to be good evidence that no beneficent god exists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 12:09 PM)3DJ Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the root words 'theist' and 'theism'. The 'a' modifies that.

No. The root word is "atheos". That's just a fact.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

^The French added the "iste" to the already created Greek word "atheos" in the 16th century.

theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (see theo-) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

^The English did the same to the word "theos", almost a full century later. There was no words "theist" and "theism" to add an "a" to.

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?'" ~ Antony Flew, 1984

Read more carefully: " from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 10:06 AM)3DJ Wrote:  
(10-10-2015 06:34 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's because there is no blank state in the analogy. There is no blankt state of even or odd being the believe.

The alternative view comes from acknowledging humans and thinking beings aren't born thinking or believing such positions. They have a blank state of off. So unless you flip the ON switch which is something like theism, they are currently still off, so they fit the description of non-belief/atheist to that degree.

Just as I am a Non-Smoker, Non-Stampstamp collector/non-Philatelist, etc. Now there is no reason to label oneself these things, they're politically/socially motivated labels in contrast to something existing. But I am accurately described by my actions to these things.

Yes, we have the word "nothing", for blank slates. If they haven't seen the jar...haven't been asked the question...they're "nothing". They aren't even involved in the conversation, why label them anything? If they contemplate the question, and suspend judgement, that's the definition Huxley gave for agnostic.

Why should being involved in the conversation matter? You can define things without "asking" a question. The definition of label is to define what accurately represents a group. Why label it, because it accurately fits.

Like I said, there is a social/political/philosophical motivational purpose to some labels, especially atheism/agnosticism.

A default state of "nothing" or nothingness doesn't even make sense as a blank state. Polling, data mining, and finding commonality of groupins would struggle to be understood if you labeled via only those you've yet to know contemplate the question at hand.

Quote:but don't claim to know it. Just "agnostic atheist" says nothing much, to me.

And in this case, that's how it should be. A default state shouldn't be saying much to anyone. That's why it is a proper default state.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 12:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Read more carefully: " from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)."

You read more carefully. They're describing the root word "atheos", not "atheist". Just like they describe the root word "theos", not "theist". I would hope you wouldn't also argue that "theos" = "theist".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 07:09 PM
RE: Are Agnostics gutless Atheists?
(11-10-2015 06:10 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And in this case, that's how it should be. A default state shouldn't be saying much to anyone. That's why it is a proper default state.

In that grouping could be "agnostic strong/positive atheists", that believe "no gods", but don't claim to know. How is that a default state?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: