What would it take to disprove atheism?

[BL2KTN]

This is simply not true and it has been addressed on this very forum many times.

(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.
(A)theism pertains to belief in personal gods.

They are different answers to different questions and they are not at all mutually exclusive.

Agnosticism is not "some third option" between theism and atheism.

I conclusively showed in another thread that theism and atheism are default gnostic positions using every single resource available, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, leading thinkers, etc. I conclusively showed in that same thread that agnosticism is the lack of position in regards to theism and atheism - in fact the word was invented specifically to differentiate people from theists and atheists.

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis," — had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

-- Thomas Henry Huxley

And I ask you to remember that this is not how most of us use these terms.

I am aware of it as I would be if some desired to refer to triangles as squares.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I conclusively showed in another thread that theism and atheism are default gnostic positions using every single resource available, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, leading thinkers, etc. I conclusively showed in that same thread that agnosticism is the lack of position in regards to theism and atheism - in fact the word was invented specifically to differentiate people from theists and atheists.

You're overstating the support for your position in that thread by a wide margin. As a recall, many of the sources you cited for support disagreed with your position and supported instead the definition most atheists on this forum regularly use. You can refer back to that thread for evidence of this.

 

[BL2KTN]

You're overstating the support for your position in that thread by a wide margin. As a recall, many of the sources you cited for support disagreed with your position and supported instead the definition most atheists on this forum regularly use. You can refer back to that thread for evidence of this.

Feel free to substantiate your statement. I provided full definitions by the two most-used online dictionaries, the full description by a major encyclopedia, the description by Wikipedia, the comments of Dr. Richard Dawkins in regard to agnosticism, and the very reason the word "agnostic" was coined by Dr. Thomas Henry Huxley. I responded to every criticism of my position using direct quotations from the critics and then a factual answer. You're more than welcome to continue the discussion in that thread if you so desire.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I conclusively showed in another thread that theism and atheism are default gnostic positions using every single resource available, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, leading thinkers, etc. I conclusively showed in that same thread that agnosticism is the lack of position in regards to theism and atheism - in fact the word was invented specifically to differentiate people from theists and atheists.

I completely disagree.

Agnostic theist: I don't know if a god exists, but I believe one exists.
Agnostic atheist: I don't know if a god eixsts, but I don't believe one exists

Gnostic theist: I know a god exists
Gnostic atheist: I know no gods exist

One is a qualifier of the other.

You need to believe something to be a theist. If you don't believe that something (meaning: if you can't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe?"), then you are an atheist.

I have no interest in the obfuscation of the words in US culture.

 

[BL2KTN]

I completely disagree.

Agnostic theist: I don't know if a god exists, but I believe one exists.
Agnostic atheist: I don't know if a god eixsts, but I don't believe one exists

Gnostic theist: I know a god exists
Gnostic atheist: I know no gods exist

There is certainly a scale for people to fit upon. However, both theism and atheism are default gnostic positions in that one does not believe something without some sort of persuasive element that has led to their belief. If I say I am a theist, then by default I base this on some sort of gnosis, however credible it may be.

One is a qualifier of the other.

I have yet to hear one single person say they are a "gnostic theist" or a "gnostic atheist." The reason the terms are not used is because they are redundant and unnecessary.

You need to believe something to be a theist. If you don't believe that something (meaning: if you can't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe?"), then you are an atheist.

This is untrue. If you ask me which of two options is correct and I say "I am unsure," then I have selected neither option but am open to both. This is the position of an agnostic. Lack of belief is not disbelief.

I have no interest in the obfuscation of the words in US culture.

Then stop defining terms in a way that is counterproductive to language. If atheism means what you say then atheism is less specific and agnosticism a pointless word.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Feel free to substantiate your statement. I provided full definitions by the two most-used online dictionaries, the full description by a major encyclopedia, the description by Wikipedia, the comments of Dr. Richard Dawkins in regard to agnosticism, and the very reason the word "agnostic" was coined by Dr. Thomas Henry Huxley. I responded to every criticism of my position using direct quotations from the critics and then a factual answer. You're more than welcome to continue the discussion in that thread if you so desire.

I already have substantiated it by referring readers to that very thread where they can read it for themselves. They can also read the sources you claim as support for your position and judge whether they do actually support your position, given that they expressly contradict what you are claiming.

 

[BL2KTN]

You should probably link it or at least tell them what thread it is. Also, I wouldn't bet the farm on too many readers visiting this thread who aren't also participating I think we may just be the actors and audience.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have yet to hear one single person say they are a "gnostic theist" or a "gnostic atheist." The reason the terms are not used is because they are redundant and unnecessary.

I'ld say the reason is because god is pretty much defined as being undetectable and unknowable.

This is untrue. If you ask me which of two options is correct and I say "I am unsure," then I have selected neither option but am open to both. This is the position of an agnostic. Lack of belief is not disbelief.

The question is not giving any options.
You need to answer "yes" to be a theist. If you can not answer "yes", then you are an atheist by default.

Theist: someone that positively believes
Atheist: someone that does not positively believes.

If you say that you are "not sure", then you DO NOT have a positive, affirmative believe.

It doesn't matter what else you believe. It doesn't matter how you qualify your disbelief.

Atheist = someone who's not a theist.
Theist = someone who positively believes.

There is no other "option" here.

Just like when a shape is not symmetrical, it is asymmetrical by default - no matter what other properties the shape has.
Only 1 property makes it symmetrical. Without that property, it is "not symmetrical" / "asymmetrical".

Likewise, only a positive belief makes you a theist. Without that positive belief, you are "not a theist" / "atheist".

Then stop defining terms in a way that is counterproductive to language.

I'm not. That's what obfuscating people do. I'm very clear in what the words mean.

One pertains to knowledge. The other to beliefs. And they are not mutually exclusive.

(a)gnosticism isn't even restricted to knowledge positions about gods. As my platform agnostic piece of software proves.

So how can the term ever be a position by itself on specific theistic propositions?

If atheism means what you say then atheism is less specific and agnosticism a pointless word.

No, it's not a pointless word. It's a qualifier.

One deals with knowledge. The other deals with belief in gods, specifically.

 

[BL2KTN]

I'ld say the reason is because god is pretty much defined as being undetectable and unknowable.

Take a poll on this site and you'll find your conclusion is very much a minority position.

The question is not giving any options.
You need to answer "yes" to be a theist. If you can not answer "yes", then you are an atheist by default.

Theist: someone that positively believes
Atheist: someone that does not positively believes.

This is just wrong. It isn't right, and you don't get to define terms in whatever way suits you.

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-- dictionary.com

1. rejection of belief in God or gods.
-- World English Dictionary

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
2 b : the doctrine that there is no deity
-- Webster's Dictionary

By every single dictionary, atheism is the disbelief, rejection, doctrine against the belief in god(s). It is not a lack of belief. It does not encompass all those who lack belief of god(s), but only those who positively disbelieve, reject, and accept opposed doctrines of god(s).

Just like when a shape is not symmetrical, it is asymmetrical by default - no matter what other properties the shape has.
Only 1 property makes it symmetrical. Without that property, it is "not symmetrical" / "asymmetrical".

Likewise, only a positive belief makes you a theist. Without that positive belief, you are "not a theist" / "atheist".

An agnostic would be an undefined shape according to your "symmetrical shape" analogy. An agnostic is neither a theist, nor an atheist, which is exactly why the term was created (see the quote I have provided).

(a)gnosticism isn't even restricted to knowledge positions about gods. As my platform agnostic piece of software proves.

So how can the term ever be a position by itself on specific theistic propositions?

Because the term was invented to do just that. It refers to anything in which one is unsure based on lack of persuasive evidence, but is primarily used in regard to the belief in divinity.

The very first definition given for the term by Webster (I'm not going through all the dictionaries again like I did for atheism, you can do that):

agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

No, it's not a pointless word. It's a qualifier.

One deals with knowledge. The other deals with belief in gods, specifically.

I'm trying hard not to be offensive because this is so seemingly simple, and yet you are so seemingly bent on making it difficult. You are separating knowledge and belief, but the two are very much the same thing. People believe based on what they know, whether what they know is fact or fiction. The distinction between "knowing" and "believing" is not a real distinction at all... it is an over-complication of the same phenomenon. One may indeed use the term "agnostic" as a qualifier if one wishes to convey that they have some degree of uncertainty in their position, however, the term also functions as a noun. I have shown repeatedly what that use is.

Please stop fighting every single reference and authority on the English language. The words have specific meanings which I have shown.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is just wrong. It isn't right, and you don't get to define terms in whatever way suits you.

But you apparently do?

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-- dictionary.com

1. rejection of belief in God or gods.
-- World English Dictionary

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
2 b : the doctrine that there is no deity
-- Webster's Dictionary

By every single dictionary, atheism is the disbelief, rejection, doctrine against the belief in god(s). It is not a lack of belief. It does not encompass all those who lack belief of god(s), but only those who positively disbelieve, reject, and accept opposed doctrines of god(s).

See the definition in red.

An agnostic would be an undefined shape according to your "symmetrical shape" analogy. An agnostic is neither a theist, nor an atheist, which is exactly why the term was created (see the quote I have provided).

But not how the term is currently used. Read your own sources!

Because the term was invented to do just that. It refers to anything in which one is unsure based on lack of persuasive evidence, but is primarily used in regard to the belief in divinity.

The very first definition given for the term by Webster (I'm not going through all the dictionaries again like I did for atheism, you can do that):

agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

See above, the link in particular.

Please stop fighting every single reference and authority on the English language. The words have specific meanings which I have shown.

You're ignoring what your own sources say and drastically overstating how much they support your position.

 

[BL2KTN]

But you apparently do?

No. I get to cite references to demonstrate a position's validity. Had I been wrong, I would have changed my use of the words.

See the definition in red.

Agnostics do not reject god(s). Agnostics take no position, neither rejecting nor affirming.

But not how the term is currently used. Read your own sources!

What, specifically, within that link you do you feel contradicts what I have said? I agree with everything in that link.

You're ignoring what your own sources say and drastically overstating how much they support your position.

Sometimes I'm agnostic as to whether or not you're real. Seriously, how can some of you be so smart at times and so dense in this one area? Is being perceived right more important that being communicatively accurate?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What, specifically, within that link you do you feel contradicts what I have said? I agree with everything in that link.

You keep saying that, but then you go ahead and contradict that which you apparently "agree" with. Either you do not agree with it or you are misunderstanding what it says.

Sometimes I'm agnostic as to whether or not you're real. Seriously, how can some of you be so smart at times and so dense in this one area? Is being perceived right more important that being communicatively accurate?

Speak for yourself!

There is nothing inaccurate in my description of myself as agnostic atheist, and if you agree with that link (as you frequently purport to) then you understand why that description is both accurate and informative.

 

[BL2KTN]

You keep saying that, but then you go ahead and contradict that which you apparently "agree" with. Either you do not agree with it or you are misunderstanding what it says.

Okay, here's what I want you to do. Select something in that reference you provided which you feel contradicts what I say. Then, directly below, quote something I have typed which contradicts it. Please do so, or just stop. This is getting silly.

Speak for yourself!

There is nothing inaccurate in my description of myself as agnostic atheist, and if you agree with that link (as you frequently purport to) then you understand why that description is both accurate and informative.

You can be an agnostic atheist as I have said repeatedly, over and over and over. In that case, "agnostic" is acting as an adjective, describing your atheism as based on something unknowable and unprovable. It describes a degree of uncertainty. I hate to patronize, but surely you can see the difference in the term as an adjective and as a noun.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay, here's what I want you to do. Select something in that reference you provided which you feel contradicts what I say. Then, directly below, quote something I have typed which contradicts it. Please do so, or just stop. This is getting silly.



You can be an agnostic atheist as I have said repeatedly, over and over and over. In that case, "agnostic" is acting as an adjective, describing your atheism as based on something unknowable and unprovable. It describes a degree of uncertainty. I hate to patronize, but surely you can see the difference in the term as an adjective and as a noun.

You see, you keep saying that, over and over, and then as soon as someone describes themselves as an 'atheist' you are bewildered at how they could also, at the same time, claim to be an agnostic. In fact, you've told me personally that I should describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist because my lack of belief is what defines agnosticism. I've repeatedly shown you, and others have repeatedly shown you, using your own sources as evidence, that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms; that atheism pertains to a lack of theism (i.e., a lack of belief in deities); that agnosticism pertains to knowledge claims - in this case, knowledge claims relating to theism. You purport to agree with this, and yet when someone calls themselves an 'atheist' the cycle simply begins again, with you bewildered by yet another atheist describing themselves as an agnostic, even though you ostensibly agree that 'agnostic atheist' is a legitimate term for a real position that people hold.

 

[BL2KTN]

You see, you keep saying that, over and over, and then as soon as someone describes themselves as an 'atheist' you are bewildered at how they could also, at the same time, claim to be an agnostic. In fact, you've told me personally that I should describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist because my lack of belief is what defines agnosticism. I've repeatedly shown you, and others have repeatedly shown you, using your own sources as evidence, that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms; that atheism pertains to a lack of theism (i.e., a lack of belief in deities); that agnosticism pertains to knowledge claims - in this case, knowledge claims relating to theism. You purport to agree with this, and yet when someone calls themselves an 'atheist' the cycle simply begins again, with you bewildered by yet another atheist describing themselves as an agnostic, even though you ostensibly agree that 'agnostic atheist' is a legitimate term for a real position that people hold.

I asked you to provide a quote from the reference and then a quote from me so that I could see how you think I am being contradictory. You did not do so.

I have given you the definitions of the top dictionaries, the best encyclopedias, the leading thinkers, and the author of the term "agnostic" himself. If you cannot do the very simple thing which I have requested to resolve this issue, then I see no point in continuing. I said that unless you could do that, this was becoming silly and it is.

If you believe in the divine, you are a theist.
If you lack a position on the existence of the divine, you are an agnostic.
If you disbelieve there to be anything divine, you are an atheist.
If you are either a theist or atheist and you feel your belief is not based on persuasive evidence, you may qualify your position with the adjective "agnostic".

I myself am a theist, specifically a deist. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being strong, convinced disbelief, and 10 being strong, convinced belief, I would land somewhere around an 8. If I felt my position was based on whimsy, I might refer to myself as an agnostic deist... but obviously I don't. Neither do I refer to myself as a gnostic deist, as that is a given based on my election of the deist belief given the evidences which I have weighed. That is why people do not use the term "gnostic" often, because 1) it isn't a common English term, and 2) it is redundant for nearly every belief one can imagine.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked you to provide a quote from the reference and then a quote from me so that I could see how you think I am being contradictory. You did not do so.

In point of fact I have already done so by referring readers to that previous thread. Others have already called you out on it, more than once.

I have given you the definitions of the top dictionaries, the best encyclopedias, the leading thinkers, and the author of the term "agnostic" himself. If you cannot do the very simple thing which I have requested to resolve this issue, then I see no point in continuing. I said that unless you could do that, this was becoming silly and it is.

You've been reading your sources selectively in some cases. In others, you've purported to agree with what they say, but then you've contradicted them, as the previous thread shows.

 

[quatona]

I conclusively showed in another thread that theism and atheism are default gnostic positions using every single resource available, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, leading thinkers, etc. I conclusively showed in that same thread that agnosticism is the lack of position in regards to theism and atheism - in fact the word was invented specifically to differentiate people from theists and atheists.

Maybe that was sufficient for you to confirm your notion - as far as I recall, it wasn´t for most of the other participants.

I am aware of it as I would be if some desired to refer to triangles as squares.

Then you better sharpen your awareness.

 

[BL2KTN]

In point of fact I have already done so by referring readers to that previous thread. Others have already called you out on it, more than once.

Yes, because referencing an entire thread is highly specific. And you could make direct quotes, but then that would be impossible since I have been accurate the entire time. Yeesh... if you had contradictory quotes from me, you'd be using them.

You've been reading your sources selectively in some cases. In others, you've purported to agree with what they say, but then you've contradicted them, as the previous thread shows.

Quote where I've been contradictory. Otherwise, let me reference a site where I believe you have made some extremely contradictory statements. I present to the readers, exhibit A:

http://www.christianforums.com

Maybe that was sufficient for you to confirm your notion - as far as I recall, it wasn´t for most of the other participants.

When the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and authors of words aren't good enough, what more can ya' do =)

Then you better sharpen your awareness.

In this context, I'm not sure either of us knows what that means.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, because referencing an entire thread is highly specific. And you could make direct quotes, but then that would be impossible since I have been accurate the entire time. Yeesh... if you had contradictory quotes from me, you'd be using them.

Goodness! Didn't you click on any of the links? Not even this one? From that post on (perhaps even earlier) there is an abundance of contradiction to what you purport to "agree" with. I even noted that others beside myself have pointed that out to you.

Quote where I've been contradictory. Otherwise, let me reference a site where I believe you have made some extremely contradictory statements. I present to the readers, exhibit A:

http://www.christianforums.com

Incidentally, you would be correct, although not for the reasons you think. During my history on this forum I've held some views that I no longer ascribe to, views that I now argue against. To someone who ignores that posting history I suppose it would appear that I was being contradictory.

 

[BL2KTN]

Goodness! Didn't you click on any of the links? Not even this one? From that post on (perhaps even earlier) there is an abundance of contradiction to what you purport to "agree" with. I even noted that others beside myself have pointed that out to you.

How is what I said even remotely contradictory to my position? I gave the basic definitions for theism, atheism, and agnosticism, then asked you why you prefer to call yourself an atheist. What in the world is contradictory there?

Incidentally, you would be correct, although not for the reasons you think. During my history on this forum I've held some views that I no longer ascribe to, views that I now argue against. To someone who ignores that posting history I suppose it would appear that I was being contradictory.

The point was to show you that specificity in accusation matters. You can quote and examine what someone says rather than saying "you did x,y,z!"