Is Atheism a logical belief?

Atheists answer the question; do you believe God exists with NO
Atheists answer the question; do you believe God does not exist with YES

Theists answer the question; do you believe God exists with YES
Theists answer the question; do you believe God does not exist with NO


Agnostics answer the question; do you believe God does not exist with NO
Agnostics answer the question; do you believe God exists with NO

Its determined by the position you take based upon your belief, not the 'quantity, how much' you believe or disbelieve it.

 

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

 

False, agnostics reject atheism

FALSE they are agnostic because they reject both atheists and theists

Answering NO to both questions is a rejection of both positions, sorry

Please refer to the accepted definition

If you answer yes to either theism or atheism you are NOT agnostic

 

You are sort of right. But, also:

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

 

you can believe whatever nonsense you want, [proving up the point is another story!

You should help swensson in my thread, he has been diligently working to defeat that faulty logic for pages on end

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ional-religion.564784/page-80#post-1073043961

Im sure he would apreciate your help!

Meantime stanford university clearly spells it out for you

Huxley’s principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence (Huxley 1884 and 1889). But it was Huxley’s application of this principle to theistic and atheistic belief that ultimately had the greatest influence on the meaning of the term. He argued that, since neither of those beliefs is adequately supported by evidence, we ought to suspend judgment on the issue of whether or not there is a God. Nowadays, the term “agnostic” is often used (when the issue is God’s existence) to refer to those who follow the recommendation expressed in the conclusion of Huxley’s argument: an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false.

stanford point out that if its used out of the context that Huxley used it then you can go nuts with it, which of course neoatheists are more then happy to do.

Lets look at webster:

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such 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. 2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something political agnostics.

Definition of agnostic - Merriam-Webster


Its very simple my dear watson, if you claim atheist you have committed to belief of nonexistence, a direct contradiction to agnostic.

Agnostic, atheist, theist are exclusive conditions

 

Nope, you are wrong on all counts
PLease refer to these definitions and their usage
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[30][31][32]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[30][31][32]
Apathetic agnosticism
The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."[33][34][failed verification][35]

You don't know more about what I and other agnostic atheists believe or how we get there than we do. Your definitions are incomplete and your 'logic' presupposes facts not in evidence.

 

In fact that is precisely the point, it is precisely what both theists and atheists accept to make their decision facts not entered into evidence lol

Agnostics reject both theism and atheism

Present your evidence then.

Evidence is required to have a fact, to be logical: you must have some sort of evidence to support claiming you are an atheist!

Lets start there. I await your evidence!

I hope this is compelling not just another waste of my time as is all the other neoatheist blatherings

 

Lets not 'start there' I provided evidence of acceptable and common uses of these terms above. Those are facts that I wanted to prove. Here is my source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism I don't need evidence to be an atheist, or an agnostic or to justify being either. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. I know what I believe and I know what I don't believe. I believe is a better policy normally to demand more evidence of a positive assertion, than a negative assertion. I believe that any assertion that there are Gods that exist is a positive assertion that falls readily in that category. I see an assertion that any remain involved in the happenings of people or the planet as another positive assertion I have seen no evidence that any deities play an active role in anyone's life even if they do happen to exist so I am less that driven to look for more either way. I choose those beliefs

 

Yep logical LNC violation

true you only need it to prove its logical to argue your position is a valid one

yes you can believe you are God if you like, but when you come out here and try to prove your belief is a valid one, then you gotta cough up the goods.

I knew this was going to be another dead end believers not provers argument

 

It is. We have another anti atheist trying to prove that atheism is something it is not and means something more than it does, and demanding proof that no refusal to believe in a positive assertion lacking in evidence is ever is obliged to provide. You are just another example of intolerance, no different than an anti-theist except you don't even know what agnostic atheists actually believe and what they actually assert.

 

What I do know is that not knowing and therefore claiming God did it, is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Not saying that is what you are doing. But I presume I will not have to read much further in this thread to find an argument from ignorance.

 

Nah, we have militant atheists trying to hijack agnosticism.

yeh as soon as I get done proving this nonsense LOL

The stupidity in that argument in your quote is this; Agnostics do not hold any belief in the existence of any deity.
and agnostics claim unknowable, Oops! Did I forget about your atheist? LOL You get bent out of shape that I said you were agnostic, there is your proof.

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern.

It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
~Thomas Henry Huxley > Quotes


So are you now going to tell me the creator of the word agnostic and its meaning was wrong?

 

I have to ask. Do you have even an undergraduate degree in physics let alone a PHD? Cause I am thinking the answer is you do not. So what are your qualifications to use terms from quantum field theory? What is your basis to presume you yourself are not ignorant of string theory?

No need to worry about being offensive. Rather rather just provide evidence of claims instead of feelings.

 

That our higher natures have no origin or fellowship in the natural world, is evidence that we are more than creatures. And that the more that we are is not part of the natural world. Such is our relationship, origin, and camaraderie with the divine. And were our sciences to carry us to the edge of the universe, it would still be so, as we have always been more than creatures.

 

Bent out of shape? wrong again I am both an agnostic and an atheist I wear both with pride.
Yes we can believe in deities or their lack. We cannot know and we cannot believe it is knowable now. Some believe never. That is why you see a distinction between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism based exactly that belief above. Want some other sources? https://www.learnreligions.com/agnostic-atheist-dictionary-definition-247755
"An agnostic atheist is defined as one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods. This definition makes it clear that being agnostic and being an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge and belief are related but separate issues: Not knowing if something is true or not doesn't exclude believing or disbelieving it.

Agnostic atheist can often be treated as synonymous with weak atheist. Whereas weak atheist emphasizes one's lack of belief in gods, agnostic atheist emphasizes that one does not make any knowledge claims—and usually, the lack of knowledge is an important part of the foundation for the lack of belief. Agnostic atheist is arguably a label which applies to most atheists in the West today."

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-atheist-faq.htm
First, an atheist is one who does not believe in God. Additionally, the atheist may or may not actually deny the existence of God. Second, agnosticism has two main streams. The “soft” agnostic does not know whether or not there is a God. The “hard” agnostic says one cannot know about the existence of God. Some people term this hard agnosticism as “agnostic atheism.” These definitions of agnosticism leave open the possibility of an agnostic also being an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

There are several specific beliefs that are within the defined limits of agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist may be described as a person who does not believe in God or gods and who holds one or more of the following to be true:

• The existence or nonexistence of deities is not known or is unknowable.
• The knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of deities is unimportant.
• The claim to knowledge of existence or nonexistence of deities is best avoided.

The agnostic atheist, therefore, combines elements of not knowing the existence of God with the unbelief in God.

And that differs from an agnostic theist who can believe in God and does.https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-agnostic-theism-248048

 

I repeat, that is a misapplication of agnostic, you can spam volumes of that nonsense, none of your citations are credible. One is a christian site FFS

So you have now told me you know more than the creator of the word, that will go over big!

Like I said, I await your evidence! To be an atheist you have to believe what you have NO grounds for professing to believe. (and you believe no Gods exist)

I will stick with ole webster, stanford, dictionary.com, and the guy who created the word all of whom disagree with your nonsense for reasons posted several times already. clearly you are in denial of the facts and can post no logical argument.

Not much to say to anyone flatly in denial facts, it does prove why you believe the way you do however, but if you can do a little better and come up with a bonafide argument based in logic let me know.

 

There you go, logical proof you cant be both, it even covers lack of belief in the bottom section

Brought to you by koko's center for public education.

 

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

 

That is because they are not defining agnostic atheism or agnostic theism, just agnosticism. Agnostic atheism is an application without quite as broad a lexicographic history and usage. The last thing you should be using is the 'guy who made up the word' because as these notions gain more attention and adherents there is inevitable splintering based on nuances and differences he did not see when he originated the word. He forgot to get a copywrite and there was no patent filed in 1869 so what it means to be an agnostic gets to change and diversify over the decades just as always happens in philosophy and religion. In this case, several forms of agnosticism and three degrees of agnosticism are now identified and they all claim that we do not know whether deities exist and that is currently unknowable They differ in whether to believe in them or how big a deal it is whether they exist or not.

You don't have to like that these varieties of agnostic thought exist and play that 'no true scotsman' song if you want, but many Agnostics no longer express this refusal to believe or refusal to disbelieve as a foundational tenet of their philosophic position. They now have provided a lot more nuance and complexity on the belief side, while still maintaining that they do not know what is not knowable.

Now I, an agnostic atheist will go to bed and dream about secular humanism taking over the world.

 

agnostic

noun
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.

‘Although not all Skeptics are agnostics, as an agnostic himself Dr Groves sees no evidence for accepting or rejecting the idea of any belief.’

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/agnostic

I mean seriously how many ****ing academic sources are you going to deny?

It doesnt matter how many people sit around the bar throwing around defective definitions and making nonsense up, the buck stops at philosophy.U and all you gave me is blogs and some psychology now article totally misquoted the author.

Are you kidding. Puhlease, a copyright is automatic, you dont need to file for anything.

Your proposed agnostic-atheist is not a bonfide philosophical position, just bar room opinions of people expressing their 'feelings' because they lack the education to state it any other way. sorry.

secular humanism is atheist not agnostic religion

I already showed you that the bunk way your sources are defining agnostic is no different than the definition of atheist. plonk! thats the sound it makes hitting the bottom of file 13 can.

Your in denial of the facts

 

Is Bertrand Russel's philosophical position bona fide enough for you? He defines himself as both agnostic and atheist.

https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_6.php

There.

 

Insert Bertrand Russell here.

 

Humanism is speciesist, arrogant self centred human.

 

You are correct... I do not.....
but thankfully String Theory is now worded in a way that even a fairly good high school student can catch onto the basic idea.....
of more and more invisible dimensions of space and time that are function at higher and higher and higher levels of energy.......

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

did you miss my response or simply ignore it to pretend I never responded and rebutted it?

Agnostic has absolutely nothing to do with atheist.