Yazata
Valued Senior Member
It isn't a matter of what people think they are sure about. (That's closer to faith.) It's a matter of what they know.
Attitudes Toward Atheists & Beliefs About Atheists
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
It isn't a matter of what people think they are sure about. (That's closer to faith.) It's a matter of what they know.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
There were some intervening posts...
I'm still going with, "Huh?" You replied immediately after my post. You directly quoted my post. There has only been one other post in the thread, i.e. no "intervening" posts.
That's a slander of most atheists - attributing to them claims of certainty and omniscience they do not make, or need to.
It also underestimates the power of belief in the theistic - the differences between people in the quality and influence of their belief.
Certainty is not involved. Judgment is. Faith is.
It's a generalization that fits the post I was responding to: "I happen to be an atheist & consider agnostics to be cowardly atheists hedging their bet in our modern USA culture." That post implied that real, courageous atheists don't "hedge their bets" - i.e. they are fairly certain.
It's a slander of most atheists and an underestimation of many theistic believers, regardless of its rhetorical convenience.
The observation that most - the very large majority - of self described "agnostics" are in fact atheistic, but not willing to label themselves such for one or more of various reasons at least some of which are visible and involve threat, doesn't earn these agnostics the sobriquet "coward" in my opinion. But it is otherwise apparent, a common observation.
Maybe my sentence wasn't clear. I was responding to an atheist who seems "fairly certain" that there is no god.
If you want to take it as an insult, fine.
But slander is a legal term. If you think you have a case, call a lawyer.
Where does anyone get the idea that they know better what another person believes or thinks than that other person knows himself?
Where would anyone get the idea that someone else misrepresents their true beliefs and thoughts, on something that doesn't matter either way, and from which they have nothing to gain by misrepresenting?
Why would you even want to volunteer a different reading of other people's minds?
Where would anyone get the idea that someone else misrepresents their true beliefs and thoughts, on something that doesn't matter either way, and from which they have nothing to gain by misrepresenting?
Why would you even want to volunteer a different reading of other people's minds?
This atheist knows he is agnostic.
I'd guess that most atheists are agnostic - given that agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
On the grounds that, if we did know of his/ her/ its existence, then atheism - the disbelief in "god" - would be logically untenable.
On the grounds that, if we did know of his/ her/ its existence, then atheism - the disbelief in "god" - would be logically untenable.
From SideShowBob Post 38
How can you be so arrogant? You claim to better know what I believe about the existence of gods than I do.
Let us make sure our semantics are very close to being the same. My definitions are as follows.
I hope there will be very little or no nit picking relating to the above definitions.
I am an atheist & I know exactly what I believe about the existence of supernatural beings called gods.
BTW: If I lived in a jurisdiction which considered it a punishable crime to not believe in any god or gods, I would choose to believe in the Greek bunch headed by Zeus & (I believe) adopted by the Romans using different names (assuming I was given a choice).
That seems insulting. It is a claim that atheists & believers do not know what they think about the existence of gods.
How can you be so arrogant? You claim to better know what I believe about the existence of gods than I do.
It is very simple. I do not believe in the existence of any supernatural creature or entity corresponding to what theists call a god.
Let us make sure our semantics are very close to being the same. My definitions are as follows.
Theist or believer: One who believes in the existence of at least one supernatural being usually called a god.
Atheist: One who does not believe in the existence of any such supernatural beings.
Agnostic: One who claims to be neither a theist nor an atheist. I suppose this implies that he has no current opinion relating to the existence of gods.
Atheist: One who does not believe in the existence of any such supernatural beings.
Agnostic: One who claims to be neither a theist nor an atheist. I suppose this implies that he has no current opinion relating to the existence of gods.
I hope there will be very little or no nit picking relating to the above definitions.
I am an atheist & I know exactly what I believe about the existence of supernatural beings called gods.
I believe that there are no such beings.
BTW: If I lived in a jurisdiction which considered it a punishable crime to not believe in any god or gods, I would choose to believe in the Greek bunch headed by Zeus & (I believe) adopted by the Romans using different names (assuming I was given a choice).
Hard luck.
As noted several times in this thread (and as, IIRC, as a sticky elsewhere by James R) agnosticism is an epistemological position - what can be known about "god". It's orthogonal to belief.
Your "definition" of agnostic falls down on the grounds that if one has "no current opinion" then there is a lack of belief = atheist.
There's either a belief or there isn't - you can't have a middle position.
Fallacy.
Explain please.
There is either what belief, or there isn't, without allowing for a middle position?
It's a nice tag line, and a nice graphic, sure, but none of it is attached to anything; it has no meaning.
There is either a belief or there isn't. Zero is zero. Belief or nonbelief thus formulated still results in essentially nothing, as it is akin to multiplying a variable by zero.
There is, of course, a plot twist, but it comes later in the variable adventure; that is, we will either need it or not.
^^^
Word salad meaning nothing.
A theist is 1 who believes there is a god or gods. An atheist is 1 who is not a theist. Everyone is either theist or atheist.
<>
Fallacy.
To reiterate:
There is either a belief or there isn't. Zero is zero. Belief or nonbelief thus formulated still results in essentially nothing, as it is akin to multiplying a variable by zero.
So pay attention, please:
Look, we all have pride and our moments of egotism and self-righteousness, but I really don't get this bit where people just can't be bothered to have a point while putting on pretentious airs. And, you know, if they can't be bothered to have a point, is it still too much to ask that they have a clue?
No, seriously what are we to think of the phrase, "Word salad meaning nothing", when it is the cowardice of going out of one's way to be offensive while ducking the point in order to simply repeat the fallacy?
It would be one thing if you had an actual answer, but, I don't know, what, is that somehow an unfair expectation?
^^^
It is not a fallacy & I did not duck anything.
You make no point & no sense. YOU pay attention.
I stated the answer. What you do with it is up to you.
ANY belief.
That is not a fallacy. It is a clear & simple logical truth.
<>
Last edited: