Who has the burden of proof?

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree! It was your position that one can be a Theist even though one only thinks that God’s existence is likely. Similarly, your position was that one can be an atheist, even though one only thinks that it is possible that God does not exist. (Actually, that would mean that theists are atheists, according to you!!!

NO IT DOES NOT.

Theist = Believes God exists.
Atheist = Does not believe God exists.

Now, how in the blue hell can a theist BE an atheist when they mean exactly the opposite thing?! You're talking garbage!

SEE NEXT POST, post 616! Or at least according to your original definitions, they change so constantly, it’s hard to keep up.)

I've not changed my definitions ONCE this whole time. Quote me a single time that I changed what definitions I was using.

Actually, if you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I said “agnostic theist” not theist.

It's irrelevant. You're still categorically wrong with regards to your definitions of agnostic and theist.

So you think that the proposition “God exists” is not a claim? But wait in post 607 (see above) you claimed that theism is the belief (claim) * that God exists!

Yes, it is. But "theism" isn't a claim. "Theism" carried the implication of a claim, but it is not in and of itself a claim, which is why the statement "prove theism" doesn't make sense. Like I clearly said: it's a GRAMMATICAL issue.

So you are saying that one can only be a 100% theist. I agree. If you are any less than that you are an agnostic theist.

WRONG. An agnostic theist IS STILL "100%" A THEIST. You CANNOT be any less than 100% a theist or 100% an atheist - that makes no sense. You can still be a "100% theist" AND an agnostic.

I used the percentage argument because you previously embraced it.

That is a lie. I have never "embraced" it and have repeatedly said from the first time you used it that it was a silly and nonsensical approach to the debate.

However, my point does not have to have belief quantified. One can simply favor theism and one is still an agnostic and not a theist.

THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS.

How do you not understand this yet?

As in my example, one can favor the Republican Party but that does not mean that you are a Republican, you are still an independent.

That's because political beliefs are not an either/or proposition. Belief in God is. Using your example, you either support the Republican Party (i.e vote for them) or you do not support the Republican Party. Even if you are in FAVOUR of the party, that doesn't change the fact that you can only support them or not support them. Either you vote for them or you do not. That's it.

* Are you now actually going to claim that one can have a belief without making any claims? Are you going to actually say that "God exists" is not a claim?

Since I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THAT in the very post you are referencing, I can only assume you're not even reading my posts properly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I NEVER said that you or anyone said that agnostic and atheist are two words for the same concept.

Oh really?

Post 567:
"I do not agree with my opposition’s contention that atheist and agnostic are two different terms for the same concept"

I have repeatedly explained that that isn't the case, and gone to great length in explaining the difference. The fact that you seem incapable of understanding what I have written on the subject is your fault, not mine.

I said that that is the logical conclusion from your position that atheism is the lack of belief in God and is not the belief that there is no God. Your definition of atheist is also the definition of agnostic.

NO IT IS NOT.

I have explained this dozens of times, and given you multiple dictionary definitions of agnostic that confirm the differences.

You clearly do not know or understand the definition of "agnostic".

Are you now going to claim that one can be an agnostic and believe in God?

Yes. Because that's what an agnostic theist is.

Note that I said "agnostic" not 'agnostic theist" . "Agnostic" and "agnostic theist" are not different words for the same concept.

No, they refer to a subset of theists who believe in God but do not claim to KNOW that God exists or believe that God is unknown/unknowable.

How many times do I have to explain this?

By the way, what is your word for someone that believes that God does not exist?

They're a subset of atheist. Some call them strong or gnostic atheists.

I am actually an agnostic atheist. I am not trying to discredit atheism ( or theism) I am only trying to make people use the correct terminology.

And it is blindingly obvious to everyone who reads this thread that you have no idea what the "correct terminology" is. Here is a helpful primer of all the dictionary definitions we have provided and you have, thus far, completely ignored:

ATHEIST

Atheism
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
SOURCE: atheism: definition of atheism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Atheist
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
adj
2. (Philosophy) of or relating to atheists or atheism
SOURCE: atheist - definition of atheist by The Free Dictionary

Atheist
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
SOURCE: Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

Atheism
noun
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2) a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
SOURCE: Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
SOURCE: Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AGNOSTIC

Agnostic
noun
1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
SOURCE: agnostic: definition of agnostic in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Agnostic
n.
1.a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
SOURCE: agnostic - definition of agnostic by The Free Dictionary

Agnostic
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
SOURCE: Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."
SOURCE: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DISBELIEF

dis·be·lief
noun
a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
SOURCE: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

dis·be·lief
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
SOURCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

disbelief
NOUN
1. Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
SOURCE: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...lish/disbelief

Disbelief
Noun[edit]
Unpreparedness, unwillingness, or inability to believe that something is the case.
SOURCE: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disbelief

 

[raw_thought]

Sorry about post 615. I am at home with my tablet. If a moderator can get rid of that huge space, I would be very greatfull.

 

[raw_thought]

Umm I agree with your defintion of agnostic. One that does not know. How on earth did you think otherwise? That is why I am an agnostic. I believe that it is impossible to know if God exists or does not exist.
By the way, your constant use of ad hominums (insults) makes you look childish.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Umm I agree with your defintion of agnostic. One that does not know. How on earth did you think otherwise?

I never did.

That definition of agnostic IS THE SAME DEFINITION I HAVE USED THIS ENTIRE TIME.

By the way, your constant use of ad hominums (insults) makes you look childish.

So, apparently, we can add the phrase "ad hominem" to your ever-expanding list of terms and phrases involved in this debate that you don't seem to understand.

I've not committed a single ad hominem against you. I have accused you of being ignorant on the weight of the evidence and the obvious fact that you seem incapable of understanding what I have written. I've never called you names, and I've never dismissed your argument on the basis of some personal accusation without addressing them. I've not committed an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[raw_thought]

As per your defintions, if I reject a belief, for example belief "X", if I cannot accept belief "X" Then I am saying that X is not true. For example if I reject the proposition X and claim that it is impossible, I am saying that I believe that X is not true.
Statement, "God exists" I reject it as impossible. Therefore, that is the same as saying that I believe that God does not exist.

 

[raw_thought]

???? Now you are saying that you never said that my defintion of agnostic differs from yours? You said that I do not know what agnostic means.
An agnostic theist (I guess I have to repeat myself) is one that favors the idea of God existing, but admits that he does not know.
I realize that you are very young. However, calling someone ignorant is an ad hominum. A logical fallacy.
1. Manson is stupid.
2. Manson says that 1+1=2
3. Therefore 1+1 does not equal 2
Or in your frustration are you just throwing out superfluous insults. Thats childish.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As per your defintions, if I reject a belief, for example belief "X", or if I cannot accept belief "X" Then I am saying that X is not true. For example if I reject the proposition X and claim that it is impossible, I am saying that I believe that X is not true.
Statement, "God exists" I reject it as impossible. Therefore, that is the same as saying that I believe that God does not exist.

You're confusing disbelief and believing a contrary proposition.

Imagine that you and I are at a fair, and we see a stall with a "guess the number of jelly beans are in this giant jar" stand. I approach the jar and, after a cursory glance, say "I think the number of jelly beans in the jar is even". You do not have any idea if what I'm saying is accurate, so you do not believe that the number of jelly beans is even.

Now, does that mean that you believe the number of jelly beans is odd?

???? Now you are saying that you never said that my defintion of agnostic differs from yours?

NO!

You have repeatedly said that an agnostic is someone who "has doubts" or someone who "does not believe in God and does not not believe in God". Your definition has changed repeatedly - mine has not.

You said that I do not know what agnostic means.

Because you have repeatedly made such a fact obvious. You clearly do not know or understand what agnosticism is, or the simple fact that agnosticism and atheism/theism aren't mutually exclusive terms, as well as repeatedly using erroneous definitions throughout this thread.

 

[raw_thought]

Gnostic atheist??? Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means admitting a lack of knowledge.

 

[raw_thought]

Since my defintion of agnostic is the same as yours (lack of knowledge or certainty) and you claim that my definition is ignorant than it logically follows that your defintion is ignorant.
Actually, at least we agree on the definition of agnostic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gnostic atheist??? Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means admitting a lack of knowledge.

Yes. You asked "what would you call someone who believes there is no God", and I said they would be called a strong or gnostic atheist. What's the problem?

 

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that an agnostic does not have doubts? He is certain about the existence of God or certain that God does not exist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since my defintion of agnostic is the same as yours (lack of knowledge or certainty) and you claim that my definition is ignorant than it logically follows that your defintion is ignorant.

Except you've repeatedly used the wrong definition of agnostic, and repeatedly asserted such things as "One can simply favor theism and one is still an agnostic and not a theist" and "So you are saying that one can only be a 100% theist. I agree. If you are any less than that you are an agnostic theist."

These statements, coupled with your constant inaccurate definitions provided throughout this thread, clearly show that you DON'T understand what agnosticism is. I've been using the EXACT SAME DEFINITION THE ENTIRE TIME, so if you agreed with my definition, why are you only saying so now? I've been EXTREMELY CLEAR about this, while you have constantly shifted what your definition is. I've already shown you two different definitions you have given in this thread.

Actually, at least we agree on the definition of agnostic.

And it only took about twelve pages before you finally got it.

So you are saying that an agnostic does not have doubts? He is certain about the existence of God or certain that God does not exist?

No!

Where have I EVER said that or anything even REMOTELY similar to that?! What are you actually reading??

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Gnostic atheist??? Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means admitting a lack of knowledge.

Yes...
Finish the thought....
Therefore, gnostic atheist
Would be someone who knows (gnostic) that there is no god (atheist)
Gnostic......atheist.
As opposed to an agnostic atheist, who doesn't know (agnostic) if there is a god or not, but finds insufficient evidence to believe (atheist).

Did you even see what you typed, because your respond has the shock and surprise as if you thought you typed gnostic agnostic...which wasn't the case ..

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So you are saying that an agnostic does not have doubts? He is certain about the existence of God or certain that God does not exist?

You know what..
Use the quote feature to show what he said that could even begin to give you this idea.
Post the actual quote.

 

[raw_thought]

You have repeatedly said that an agnostic is someone who "has doubts" or someone who "does not believe in God and does not not believe in God". Your definition has changed repeatedly - mine has not.

See post 632

 

[raw_thought]

If one has doubts but favors the belief in God, one is an agnostic theist. You disagree with that?
According to you, what is the difference between a theist and an agnostic theist?
If a theist has doubts how is that different from an agnostic theist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If one has doubts but favors the belief in God, one is an agnostic theist. You disagree with that?

What do you mean "favours belief in God"? It's an either/or proposition. You are ARE a theist, or you ARE NOT a theist (i.e: an atheist). There's no such thing as "favouring" a belief over a lack of belief. You either believe or you do not, as I have explained repeatedly.

An agnostic theist - as I have been explaining THIS ENTIRE THREAD - is someone who believes that there is a God, but does not claim to KNOW that there is a God.

Clear?

According to you, what is the difference between a theist and an agnostic theist?

That's like asking me "What's the difference between an owl and a barn owl". A theist is anyone who believes that there is a God. An agnostic atheist is as I have described above. It is a particular kind of theist, just as a barn owl is a particular kind of owl.

This is something I have been explaining since post #334, THIRTY PAGES AGO.

 

[raw_thought]

Yes! You are finnaly getting it! An agnostic theist thinks that God's existence is highly probable but does not know for sure.
And yes, a theist believes that the proposition "God exists" is true.

 

[raw_thought]

Ok, so you are saying that there are 2 types of atheists and 2 types of theists.
I prefer agnostic atheist and atheist. I also prefer agnostic theist and theist.
If one says " theist" (as you said and I agree is the belief in God). The agnostic added means that one has doubts (lacks knowledge or certainty) about theism but still favors it. You asked what I meant by "favors it". A person that thinks God exists but admitts a lack of certainty, favors believing in God.