• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The default position...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Curious George said:
I feel like you are evading the question. If you accept the cat is alive then you believe the cat is alive, if you accept the cat is dead then you believe the cat is dead. Are you saying it is not possible to accept both of these as true.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a cat who was very ill when I adopted her. Her condition went beyond my ability to tell if she was going to live or die. I had no idea, and I couldn't work it out either way. She did live, but there were times when I thought she wouldn't, and some times when I thought she would, and she would relapse and I would have no idea.
Bunyip said:
Well yes. I think most theists are agnostic, as are most (if not all) atheists.
Click to expand...
With this, you are moving the goal posts around so much that even theists would be atheists.
Curious George said:
We have an agnostic. This agnostic believing that the truth or falsity is equally likely of the dichotomy
Click to expand...
In my case, it isn't a perspective of equally likely, but equally unknowable. Because it is entirely impossible to know, it isn't worth being concerned about.
Unlike an atheist, I do not hold a disbelieve in god. It's like trying to figure out what is wrong with my car when I can only narrow it down to a few possibilities without running a diagnostics and examining things. It could be the alternator, the batter, different sensors, I just don't know and I can't "disbelieve" in any certain possibility until I have eliminated that possibility.
Unlike a theist, I do not hold a believe in god. With my car example, without further examination, I can narrow the possibilities down, but I can't "believe" without running a diagnostics and examining things.
Without the proper knowledge, it is entirely unknowable, and it is foolish to try to fix a car if you don't know what is wrong with it. I can say x, y, and z is (or is not) happening, but that is all I know. Without proper knowledge, there is just something, but nothing to explain this something.

This thread reminds me of that saying "you're either gay, straight, or lying." And the people who hold the idea a person is either female or male, despite the numerous things and conditions that render that dichotomy useless. Or "you're either with us or against us." People can believe you have to be either atheist or theist, but believe is not sufficient grounds for proving something.
 
Deathbydefault

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
agnostic: definition of agnostic in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
It is my understanding that that definition implies a 'lack of belief' in God(s).

atheist: definition of atheist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
It is my understanding that having a 'lack of belief' in God(s) makes you an atheist.

I'm not trying to argue from a personal perspective, just using definitions.
Please feel free to explain how I may be incorrect, or rather; how the definitions are incorrect.

(Oh, almost forgot, lack: definition of lack in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Deathbydefault said:
agnostic: definition of agnostic in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
It is my understanding that that definition implies a 'lack of belief' in God(s).
Click to expand...
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Theism is belief. Atheism is disbelief. Agnosticism is neither. If there was no significant difference, there would be no need for a separate word.
And, of course, Agnosticism itself is not a solid or concrete definition, as many do lean either towards theism or atheism. But, myself, I lean towards neither side. I have seen nothing that compels me towards either side, but I have learned many things that have only deepened and strengthened the position of my non-belief/disbelief.
 
Deathbydefault

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
ArtieE said:
Sources?
Click to expand...

Never mind, sources were linked in orange.
I'm investigating those sources as well.

I thought it was an opinion article, in which case it could not be considered argumentatively credible.

[Edit] The sources sources seem to be credible.

Not only are they credible but they also agree with my statement.

[Edit 2] I would cite them but it's pretty much every other article.
 
Last edited:
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
ArtieE said:
A non-smoker can be a pianist, a left-handed person, a goat, or the moon. Only people who want to make themselves look ridiculous would include goats or the moon among non-smokers.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that's a nice opening for Implicit vs explicit, for the next time that comes up....
A moon IS an implicit non-smoker!
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Curious George said:
Don't worry though while this solves the problem I still disagree with the inclusion of weak atheists and implicit atheists in the category atheism...But I think we have covered that in other threads. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry George, I can not make sense of your comments. How you could disagree that implicit and strong atheists are a subset of atheism I can only wonder. It is like disagreeing that black dogs and brown dogs are in the category 'dogs'.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Curious George said:
Is an implicit atheist a strong atheist? Or even easier is a baby a strong atheist?
Click to expand...
Willamena said:
"Not being a theist" is being a smoker, a pianist, a left-handed person, a goat, or the moon. It's too broad to be any sort of useful definition of atheist.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would that be true Willa? How did you even think that makes senses? A non-smoker is a person who does not smoke, a pianist plays piano, a non-pianist does not.
How you could imagine that defining atheism as not-a-theist is broad at all, let alone too broad -I have no idea.

Not sure what goats and the moon have to do with anything.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Curious George said:
Btw, I wouldn't ignore you...:) or your explanation. Once you understand what I was saying...go back and read through. I most certainly did not intend to ignore anything.
Click to expand...
George, no offence - but I read through the exchange several times and find that many of your posts are essentially illegible.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Sorry George, I can not make sense of your comments. How you could disagree that implicit and strong atheists are a subset of atheism I can only wonder. It is like disagreeing that black dogs and brown dogs are in the category 'dogs'.
Click to expand...
You are putting words in my mouth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top