Who has the burden of proof?

[raw_thought]

We can play the game where you attempt to force a single usage of a word rather than accepting there are multiple usages of the word.

Atheist is the lack of a belief in god. Doubt in the belief in god. Agnostic in general means that one claim that it is impossible "to know"

Atheism/theism is a scale of "belief"
Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a scale of "knowledge"

EDIT;
A priest who has a moment of conflict in his faith isn't an atheist. A priest who has gone through a moment of conflict in which he now holds doubt to the point he no longer believes in god as his stance (not a momentary lapse but his stance on the matter) he would then be an atheist.

I agree with that last part. If a priest gets thru his moment of doubt and then concludes that there is no God, he is no longer an agnostic, he is an atheist.
Ironically, my name at another forum is "agnostic_gnostic"!! In other words I am not sure of my knowledge.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But, I think it is required, if you want a real answer to those questions. How can one discuss 'belief in god' without definitions for atheism etc.

example. It has been posited here (RF), that ;atheism' only refers to the 'Christian God", again different from just saying 'no belief in ANY deity', huge difference actually, so, point is, you can't be using these terms in discussion without some sort of definition.

I often find the need to define terms in most debates, most especially the terms theist, atheist, agnostic and, most of all, God itself. The important thing is to try and make sure, before engaging in debate, that everyone involved in that particular debate knows and understands what definitions are being used in the context of that particular debate.

It can be a royal pain in the buns, though, but it's par for the course when discussing a subject that contains so many broad views and definitions.

 

[raw_thought]

"That is more accurate than what you said earlier. That could refer to an example of an agnostic atheist."
ImmortalFlame
Exactly!!! An "agnostic atheist" not an atheist. Or are you still claiming that "agnostic atheist"="atheist?"

 

[raw_thought]

Just to be clear, when I say "atheist" it means the rejection of all gods, Thor, Jehovah, Vishnu etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Exactly!!! An "agnostic atheist" not an atheist. Or are you still claiming that "agnostic atheist"="atheist?"

OBVIOUSLY an agnostic atheist IS an atheist. It's a subset of atheism!

If somebody is a "fundamentalist Christian", does that make them "not a Christian"? NO! It makes them a subset of Christian. If I have a dog that is a poodle, does that make it "not a dog"? NO! A poodle is a subset of dog. If you are playing poker, are you "not playing cards"? NO! Because poker is a subset of cardgame.

This is basic, basic logic.

Just to be clear, when I say "atheist" it means the rejection of all gods, Thor, Jehovah, Vishnu etc.

What part of what I have said, or of the FIVE DEFINITIONS I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH, gave you the impression that I did not understand that?

 

[Desert Snake]

I often find the need to define terms in most debates, most especially the terms theist, atheist, agnostic and, most of all, God itself. The important thing is to try and make sure, before engaging in debate, that everyone involved in that particular debate knows and understands what definitions are being used in the context of that particular debate.

It can be a royal pain in the buns, though, but it's par for the course when discussing a subject that contains so many broad views and definitions.

Seriously true there. So many debates devolve into a confused mess of term argumentation.:clap

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But, I think it is required, if you want a real answer to those questions. How can one discuss 'belief in god' without definitions for atheism etc.

example. It has been posited here (RF), that ;atheism' only refers to the 'Christian God", again different from just saying 'no belief in ANY deity', huge difference actually, so, point is, you can't be using these terms in discussion without some sort of definition.

It leads into that. But my question specifically for agnostic theism is "IF there is no knowledge or certainty why do they believe?". From there we figure out where they would be classified.

I agree with that last part. If a priest gets thru his moment of doubt and then concludes that there is no God, he is no longer an agnostic, he is an atheist.
Ironically, my name at another forum is "agnostic_gnostic"!! In other words I am not sure of my knowledge.

Before we go further I think I should state that momentary compilations and conflicts within our own beliefs shouldn't be considered a "stance". It is a moment of contemplation and confusion where one attempts to mold your identity on the matter. One usually cannot stay in this state perpetually so what you land on is where you fit.

Agnostic, as you have stated, is someone who doesn't claim knowledge or certainty on the subject but it has little to do with if they believe or not. One could be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. In fact the vast majority of atheists on RF are agnostic atheists and I don't know of any non-agnostic atheists.

 

[raw_thought]

Not directed at me I know but for example I am an Agnostic Atheist. The terms are not conflicting.

I have nothing against one calling themselves an "agnostic atheist". I probably am one. However, what concerns me is when people think "agnostic atheism" is the same as atheism. It makes debate problematic when the terms are not defined by the dictionary.

"Agnostic, as you have stated, is someone who doesn't claim knowledge or certainty on the subject but it has little to do with if they believe or not. One could be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. In fact the vast majority of atheists on RF are agnostic atheists and I don't know of any non-agnostic atheists."
"Monk Of Reason
AGREED!!!!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have nothing against one calling themselves an "agnostic atheist". I probably am one. However, what concerns me is when people think "agnostic atheism" is the same as atheism.

Agnostic atheism is under the Atheism umbrella.

When I say cheese I don't have to specify "Swiss cheese" and it usually doesn't come to an argument that Swiss Cheese is different than just "cheese".

 

[Willamena]

It leads into that. But my question specifically for agnostic theism is "IF there is no knowledge or certainty why do they believe?". From there we figure out where they would be classified.

Neither agnosticism nor atheism mean "uncertainty."

There is a breed of agnostic who is quite certain about their place in the world, their relation to knowledge, and their capacity for knowing about god. None of that precludes belief in god.

 

[raw_thought]

OBVIOUSLY an agnostic atheist IS an atheist. It's a subset of atheism!

If somebody is a "fundamentalist Christian", does that make them "not a Christian"? NO! It makes them a subset of Christian. If I have a dog that is a poodle, does that make it "not a dog"? NO! A poodle is a subset of dog. If you are playing poker, are you "not playing cards"? NO! Because poker is a subset of cardgame.

This is basic, basic logic.



What part of what I have said, or of the FIVE DEFINITIONS I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH, gave you the impression that I did not understand that?

Actually, you have it reversed. Agnosticism is the base*. One is an agnostic that favors theism or atheism. Sure, I can instead say "theist agnostic" or "atheist agnostic". But it is still obvious that agnosticism is the base.
* for an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Neither agnosticism nor atheism mean "uncertainty."

There is a breed of agnostic who is quite certain about their place in the world, their relation to knowledge, and their capacity for knowing about god. None of that precludes belief in god.

I think we're dealing specifically with agnosticism as it relates to knowledge (or claimed knowledge) of God, rather than general agnosticism. We're attempting to explain how the terms theist/atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive (albeit, with limited to no success, thus far...).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Neither agnosticism nor atheism mean "uncertainty."

There is a breed of agnostic who is quite certain about their place in the world, their relation to knowledge, and their capacity for knowing about god. None of that precludes belief in god.

Agnostics are neither certain there is a god nor certain there is not a god. Uncertain on the matter of god subsequently from their lack of knowledge or even belief that such knowledge either does not exist or is impossible to know by its nature. It doesn't not mean that one is uncertain about themselves or their own opinion. That is an important distinction to make. One can be profoundly rooted in their position as an Agnostic and their beliefs in general. But it does not mean that they are certain on the existence of god.

 

[Desert Snake]

Agnostic atheism is under the Atheism umbrella.

When I say cheese I don't have to specify "Swiss cheese" and it usually doesn't come to an argument that Swiss Cheese is different than just "cheese".

Agnosticism is implied imo,, considering deity, hence why I simplify the definitions thusly, though people love to disagree with these definitions, non-combinations
1. theist =belief in deity(any deity)
2. Agnostic=doesn't know(therefore no claim either way)
3. atheist=there are no deities,(any religion pantheon etc.)

these are ALL BELIEFS imo, and clear cut meanings.
but hey, that's just me, and on the forums these definitions are usually not employed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, you have it reversed. Agnosticism is the base*. One is an agnostic that favors theism or atheism. Sure, I can instead say "theist agnostic" or "atheist agnostic". But it is still obvious that agnosticism is the base.
* for an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Now you're not even making sense. What difference does it make what the "base" is? What even is the "base"? What does that have to do with absolutely anything that I have just explained?

Do you or do you not yet understand that an agnostic atheist is a subset of atheist?

 

[raw_thought]

Agnostic atheism is under the Atheism umbrella.

When I say cheese I don't have to specify "Swiss cheese" and it usually doesn't come to an argument that Swiss Cheese is different than just "cheese".

See post 511

 

[raw_thought]

Now you're not even making sense. What difference does it make what the "base" is? What even is the "base"? What does that have to do with absolutely anything that I have just explained?

Do you or do you not yet understand that an agnostic atheist is a subset of atheist?

Agnosticism= doubts
Agnostic atheist= someone that has doubts about atheism.
In the context of "agnostic atheist", Atheism is a subset of agnosticism.
What I meant by "base" is subject. Agnosticism is the subject. Atheist is a predicate. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope that helps.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Agnosticism is implied imo,, considering deity, hence why I simplify the definitions thusly, though people love to disagree with these definitions, non-combinations
1. theist =belief in deity(any deity)
2. Agnostic=doesn't know(therefore no claim either way)
3. atheist=there are no deities,(any religion pantheon etc.)

these are ALL BELIEFS imo, and clear cut meanings.
but hey, that's just me, and on the forums these definitions are usually not employed.

The scale is NOT Theist-Atheist with Agnostic in the middle. Theist-Agnostic-Atheist.

It is more like an XY graph where claims of belief lay on one line and claims of knowledge lay on the other. So they are interconnected as both define exactly where their position is but do not have direct implications on the other graph.

One could be highly agnostic and still be either theist or atheist. Same for the inverse.

See post 511

Read above. Agnostic-Gnostic scale and Atheist-theist scale are interconnected in terms of defining a position more specifically but neither implies the other. So there is no "base" between the two. Logically and personally there can be a base.

For example I am Agnostic due to my need for reasonable evidence and the lack thereof is what resolved my stance as an atheist. However many are theistic first and subsequently require no proof and depend upon esoteric knowledge and develop a "Gnostic" position.

Agnosticism= doubts
Agnostic atheist= someone that has doubts about atheism.
In the context of "agnostic atheist", Atheism is a subset of agnosticism.

While I agree the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists and I understand how you have come to this line or reasoning, but it isn't necessarily true in all cases.

Which means that the two can be connected and even causally connected but it does not make atheism a subsection of agnosticism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agnosticism= doubts
Agnostic atheist= someone that has doubts about atheism.
In the context of "agnostic atheist", Atheism is a subset of agnosticism.

"Agnostic atheist" is a subset of BOTH agnosticism and atheism. An agnostic atheist belongs in BOTH categories. Neither is "the base" - which is a term you've just pulled out of thin air.

SUBSETS OF ATHEISM:
Agnostic atheist
Gnostic atheist

SUBSETS OF AGNOSTICISM:
Agnostic atheist
Agnostic theist

It makes no difference which way around you put it. An agnostic atheist is STILL an atheist, and is STILL an agnostic. Hence the name agnostic atheist.

What you are saying is just as silly as saying a tortoiseshell cat is "a kind of tortoiseshell, but not a kind of cat".

 

[raw_thought]

It makes no difference which way around you put it. An agnostic atheist is STILL an atheist, and is STILL an agnostic. Hence the name agnostic atheist.

.

So "agnostic atheist"= atheist?!
Why even add the term "agnostic"
If the definition of "atheist" includes "agnostic" what is the difference between an agnostic atheist and an atheist?