Who has the burden of proof?

[ImmortalFlame]

Except for the fact that I am more atheist, I agree!

You can't be "more" an atheist. You are ARE an atheist or you ARE a theist. You cannot be "mostly" or "more" one than the other. You are either one or you are the other.

Theists believe that God exists.
Atheists disagree with that. They think God does not exist.

Wrong. Atheists DON'T believe a God exists. As I have been saying for thirty or so pages now, there is a difference between disbelieving a claim and believing a counter-claim.

If you lack knowledge (certainty ) you are an agnostic.

That's not what you've been saying for thirty pages.

 

[raw_thought]

Read your own posts! At least the one I just quoted. Post 660
You said that theists agree with the proposition that God exists and there is nothing more to it. And that athiests do not agree with that proposition, in other words it is false.
Its false that God exists = God does not exist.
I am an agnostic atheist. I am not an atheist. I do not agree with the proposition that God does not exist and I do not agree with the proposition that he does exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Read your own posts! At least the one I just quoted. Post 660
You said that theists agree with the proposition that God exists and there is nothing more to it. And that athiests do not agree with that proposition, in other words it is false.
Its false that God exists = God does not exist.

Wrong. For the exact same reason that saying "This person is not guilty" is not the same as saying "This person is innocent". I DO NOT BELIEVE the claim "God exists", that doesn't mean that I believe the claim "God does not exist". In same way, saying "I don't believe the number of jelly beans in the jar is even" doesn't mean I believe the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd.

Understand?

I am an agnostic atheist. I am not an atheist.

An agnostic atheist is a kind of atheist. You ARE an atheist. Again, this is further proof that you do not understand the terminology.

I do not agree with the proposition that God does not exist and I do not agree with the proposition that he does exist.

You're still an atheist, since an atheist is someone who doesn't believe a God exists, which is what every dictionary definition we have given you says.

 

[raw_thought]

Thats not what I have been saying? Yes, an agnostic lacks certainty, that implies that he does not agree 100% (your criteria and one that I agree with) with the proposition that God exists. As you said, an atheist disagrees with the proposition that God exists. "And that is all there is too it! " that is the same as saying that God does not exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thats not what I have been saying? Yes, an agnostic lacks certainty, that implies that he does not agree 100% (your criteria and one that I agree with) with the proposition that God exists. As you said, an atheist disagrees with the proposition that God exists. "And that is all there is too itat is the same as saying that God does not exist.

Your problem is that you think you can agree LESS than 100% with the proposition that God exists. You cannot. You either believe it (100%) or you do not believe it (0%). There are no other positions.

You either believe there is a God, or you do not. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND. You are either 100% an atheist or 100% a theist. That's it. Belief and certainty are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Thats not what I have been saying? Yes, an agnostic lacks certainty, that implies that he does not agree 100% (your criteria and one that I agree with) with the proposition that God exists. As you said, an atheist disagrees with the proposition that God exists. "And that is all there is too it! that is the same as saying that God does not exist.

Sigh.
No, but please, do carry on without actually reading posts to you.
..it's going so well for you so far....

 

[raw_thought]

Your problem is that you think you can agree LESS than 100% with the proposition that God exists. You cannot. You either believe it (100%) or you do not believe it (0%). There are no other positions.

You either believe there is a God, or you do not. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND. You are either 100% an atheist or 100% a theist. That's it. Belief and certainty are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

So you can AGREE (your words) with a proposition and believe it might be false?
Anyway, I still believe that " agnostic atheist" and "atheist" are different. You are saying that some atheists are agnostic atheist s. Fine, my way is less cluttered and more precise.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you can AGREE (your words) with a proposition and believe it is false.

NO!

Honestly, where are you getting this stuff? You can BELIEVE a claim without KNOWING that it is true. In other words, you don't have to be 100% certain that something is true in order to BELIEVE that it is true.

I BELIEVE that tomorrow I will go and visit my parents at their house. However, there is a POSSIBILITY that that will not happen, such as my parent's house being hit by a meteor. However, I have no reason to BELIEVE that that will happen, and thus I conclude - even though I acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of it not happening - that I WILL be going to visit my parents tomorrow.

If you think a proposition is false, you DO NOT BELIEVE IT.

Do you understand?

Anyway, I still believe that " agnostic atheist" and "atheist" are different.

Then you don't understand the terminology. You are factually wrong.

You are saying that some atheists are agnostic atheist s. Fine, my way is less cluttered and more precise.

No, your way is confused and shows a lack of understanding of the definitions of the terms you are using. It only seems confusing to you, and yet practically EVERYONE ELSE who has posted in this thread understands it perfectly. Meanwhile, you have repeatedly changed your definitions, become confused and outright muddled all of your definitions and terminology, repeatedly demonstrating that you simply don't understand these words and terms. We have provided dozens of dictionary definitions, and you STILL refuse to understand them. My way isn't "cluttered" or "imprecise". You just don't understand it. It's not a problem with my definitions, because my definitions are actually the CORRECT AND ACCURATE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, it's a problem with your comprehension.

 

[raw_thought]

I purposely left out "believe" and used your term from the quote "agree".
When a person says,"agreed" they are saying that the proposition is true.
If you sign a treaty, it is inappropriate to later say, I never said that I might not actually agree with it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I purposely left out "believe" and used your term from the quote "agree".

Irrelevant. I never said anything that would lead to the conclusion that you can agree with a premise and not believe it. That makes no sense.

Also, it was YOUR term. (see post #653)

 

[raw_thought]

Sigh.
No, but please, do carry on without actually reading posts to you.
..it's going so well for you so far....

Yes, I understand my opponents point that to believe something is not to know it. My point is that if one says that they believe something, for example theism, it is best to mention ones uncertainty. That is why there is a difference between agnostic theist and theist. If I say,I believe it will rain tomorrow and it does not, it is disingenuous to say I was not wrong because I never claimed certainty.

 

[raw_thought]

Irrelevant. I never said anything that would lead to the conclusion that you can agree with a premise and not believe it. That makes no sense.

Also, it was YOUR term. (see post #653)

Umm see post 660.
True, I have said "agree" many times even before this thread. But that is superfluous. The point is, is that you used it and contradicted your position. Perhaps, you were typing too fast. I can accept that.
If you agree with the proposition that it will rain tomorrow and it does not, it is disingenuous to say I was not wrong because I never claimed certainty.
Anyway, as I said many times, this whole thing started when I said that uncertainty is the only rational option. This whole semantic stuff. I find trivial and a bit trollish. Instead of attacking the substance of my argument, my opponents made it about trivial semantics. If it were not for all the childish insults I would not have responded. I guess my wife is right. Just because someone starts a fight does not mean that I have to fight. I can leave.
Too bad tho, that some have ignored the substance and went for a battle of mere semantics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I understand my opponents point that to believe something is not to know it.

Actually, it can be both. You can both believe and know, but knowing and believing are still two different things. And just because you believe something doesn't mean you know it.

My point is that if one says that they believe something, for example theism, it is best to mention ones uncertainty. That is why there is a difference between agnostic theist and theist. If I say,I believe it will rain tomorrow and it does not, it is disingenuous to say I was not wrong because I never claimed certainty.

No, you would still be wrong. Nobody is saying that not claiming certainty is a way to be disingenuous. You still BELIEVED a claim, and that claim turned out to be wrong. You were still wrong, even if you never claimed certainty.

True, I have said "agree" many times even before this thread. But that is superfluous. The point is, is that you used it and contradicted your position.

Where have I contradicted my position?

 

[raw_thought]

So if someone says that they believe that God exists, they are making a claim that God exists. Also, their uncertainty does not enter into the debate. They are saying that God exists. That is a proposition.
You are contradicting yourself because if you agree with a proposition, uncertainty does not enter the debate. Therefore, you are not an agnostic theist (one that has doubts) but instead you are taking a theist position.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Yes, I understand my opponents point that to believe something is not to know it. My point is that if one says that they believe something, for example theism, it is best to mention ones uncertainty. That is why there is a difference between agnostic theist and theist. If I say,I believe it will rain tomorrow and it does not, it is disingenuous to say I was not wrong because I never claimed certainty.

But here's where the relevancy disappears for your statement.
Your statement is that it's more accurate to not claim knowledge.
Fine, I agree with that, wholeheartedly. But the fact that it's more correct to do so, doesn't counter the demonstrable fact that there ARE people that claim gnostic theism.
There are some on this forum. There are some in this very thread. So, whether is logical or not has nothing to do with if it is a valid and used label.
Same with gnostic atheist. The gnostic or agnostic only deal with knowledge claim, regardless of if it's logical. like agnostic atheist (doesn't believe, but doesn't chain knowledge of no good.. Same as what you call an agnostic) our an agnostic theist, who believes, but doesn't claim knowledge of existence of a god.

What your not seeing, is gnostic and agnostic simply qualify theism or atheism, and describe what kind of claim it is.
You don't have to use it this way, if you only say agnostic, you'll be mostly understood, however it is absolutely not incorrect to use "agnostic atheist" and "gnostic atheist" add two different but similar things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So if someone says that they believe that God exists, they are making a claim that God exists. Also, their uncertainty does not enter into the debate. They are saying that God exists. That is a proposition.

Yes, I would say that is correct. To say "I believe God exists" is the same as saying "I believe the proposition 'God exists' to be true", thereby a theist can be said to be making a claim with regards to the truth of a given proposition.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

oh how I have missed this forum.

 

[raw_thought]

But here's where the relevancy disappears for your statement.
Your statement is that it's more accurate to not claim knowledge.
Fine, I agree with that, wholeheartedly. But the fact that it's more correct to do so, doesn't counter the demonstrable fact that there ARE people that claim gnostic theism.
There are some on this forum. There are some in this very thread. So, whether is logical or not has nothing to do with if it is a valid and used label.
Same with gnostic atheist. The gnostic or agnostic only deal with knowledge claim, regardless of if it's logical. like agnostic atheist (doesn't believe, but doesn't chain knowledge of no good.. Same as what you call an agnostic) our an agnostic theist, who believes, but doesn't claim knowledge of existence of a god.

What your not seeing, is gnostic and agnostic simply qualify theism or atheism, and describe what kind of claim it is.
You don't have to use it this way, if you only say agnostic, you'll be mostly understood, however it is absolutely not incorrect to use "agnostic atheist" and "gnostic atheist" add two different but similar things.

Our difference is in my opinion, semantic and trivial. You think that agnostic qualifies atheism and I think atheism qualifies agnosticism. In other words, I believe that uncertainty is the human condition and belief and/or disbelief are directions (metaphorically speaking, like east and west).

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Our difference is in my opinion, semantic and trivial. You think that agnostic qualifies atheism and I think atheism qualifies agnosticism.

Except that's not true on your part.
You've stated quite plainly that you feel atheism is the stance that there is definitely not a god.
How does that qualify agnostic in any way?

 

[raw_thought]

Except that's not true on your part.
You've stated quite plainly that you feel atheism is the stance that there is definitely not a god.
How does that qualify agnostic in any way?

Of course an atheist is not an agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist.
That was my argument from the start. That atheists believe there is no God.
Agnostism is the position of uncertainty. An agnostic atheist. describes an agnostic that is closer to atheism then theism. In other words atheism qualifies his agnosticism.
Anyway, I still think our difference is semantic and trivial. Also, my brain hurts! Time for bed! My eyes are starting to cross! LOL