Is Atheism a logical belief?

Do you really want to bounce definitions back and forth? We should talk about something less boring. Did you know today is Diwali?

 

The moral of this story that's when he's talking to 'smart' people that have an education he uses the proper term agnostic.

Then when he's talking to the uneducated crowd the easiest way to get his point across and simply say atheist so he doesn't blow their minds with complications they can't comprehend.

That article is not exactly clear as to what point he was trying to get across or convey to his audience in both cases but clearly it has absolutely nothing to do with him being an agnostic and atheist at the same time that's absolutely ridiculous and an incorrect reading all the article you posted.

 

It hasn't helped the atheist position to date but I mean if you feel you got something by all means post it and let's see what you think you got

I'm sorry if academic pursuits bore you

 

Your inability to comprehend what people mean when they say “Agnostic Atheist” is a bore. It’s not intellectual, it’s the opposite.

I get that you have some axe to grind with atheists so you don’t want to admit that you understand. Whatever, it’s a bore.

There is nothing wrong with the basic logic that you present or definitions you provide but understand that there are many people who identify with the agnostic atheist moniker. If you aren’t one of them, good for you. I get it.
But just know this Kokomojojo: I understand you but you don’t understand me.

 

I understand exactly what people who are ignorant of, or in DENIAL of the facts mean.

Agnostic-Atheists; believe God does not exist and they dont know for sure that God does not exist.

Which has been proven to you with a quote from the source is an irrational identity/title, its not a moniker btw.

Theist, Atheist, and agnostic are all identities in a religious sense.

Any discussion referencing beliefs in God or disbelief in God is a religious sense!

Do you comprehend what 'sense' means with regard to grammar, the english language?

What Does Agnosticism Mean?

In the religious sense of the word, agnosticism means neither believing in nor disbelieving the existence of God. ...

In the general, non-religious sense, agnosticism means being undecided or uncommitted to a particular side of a debate or disagreement.Apr 7, 2017

What Is Agnosticism? | Grammarly

agnostic

1.1(in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude towards something.

People including the person that started this nonsense failed grammar 101. They are mixing the religious sense with the nonreligious sense purely because they have no clue what of this distinction.

GRAMMARLY you know the really smart people that tell you how to properly use the the english language tell you straight up you are wrong, and you persist, even after this has been proven to you, there is no denial that you are in denial.

You claim to believe there is no God with no scientific grounds for professing a reason for such a belief.

I could care less how many people talk nonsense, neither you nor them are agnostic by any stretch of the imagination, at least not any stretch of imagination conforming to 'rational' logic as proven by the source and creator of the word and its correct usage as proven by the grammar experts GRAMMARLY.

May as well call yourselves atheist-turnips. Sorry, that is the level of nonsense this sets out.

 

You so clearly do not understand.

 

Proof that I clearly DO! LOL

There is no material difference in meaning between what you said an what I said.

Here we go folks, grab some popcorn and buckle your seat belts for the semantics-go-round.

Same **** different day http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-80

They always think that all they need do is simply state something in the negative and then claim it 'magically' carries a different meaning than stating it in the positive.




Now that it all get back to their faulty grammar you will all 'truly' get to see boring!

 

Basically, everything comes from Nothing. The problem is that we simply don't know what the properties of Nothing are. But, from nothing comes strings and quantum foam, which evolve into elemental particles which then evolve into hydrogen atoms. Eventually there is enough hydrogen that it clumps together into huge balls under its own gravity and then go nuclear as it condenses. That creates a star and over time the star cooks up new elements. The star then goes supernova and blasts the new heavy elements out into space, where they will clump up into balls and circle a star. As the planets grow in size their cores will go nuclear and cook up new heavier elements, and if the conditions are right, organic compounds will be created which will turn into living organisms. The living organisms will continue to evolve in order to survive in the conditions on the respective planet. At some unknown time one or more branches of the life forms may become intelligent and wonder where everything came from.

But remember, humans have only been intelligent for about 100 years and the vast majority of the worlds population is as dumb as primitive cave men were. Very few humans are actually intelligent. You and I are not. It is doubtful if anyone on this forum would actually fit the definition of being intelligent. We might be clever and even smart but we are far from being intelligent.

 

All animals are created equal.

The only real difference between an agnostic, and an agnostic atheist, is that an agnostic atheist before he decides what to believe in, asks the further questions who has the burden of proof on the question and why have they not provided any. I don't treat the statements 'God exists', 'God might exist' and 'God does not exist' as equivalent, nor the respective burdens on which I will base my belief as equivalents.

I need that positive assertion to be backed up. Belief is contingent on evidence. Give me some proof or evidence that God exists, then I will believe in God. If you don't, I will not believe in God. If he might exist but there is no proof so far, then I might believe later on when someone shows me some proof on which to base that belief. I don't believe in deities because they might exist. I am an atheist.

 

Sorry to come late to the fray, so pardon me and ignore this if this has already been noted and answered because I will not be reading all the other posts.

We are a speck in the universe. Ignorant no matter how much we think we know. We can only judge it and make assumptions by what we know. Your argument is god of the gaps. Making concrete assumptions about the universe with what you don't know or have evidence for. Suppose we answered all your questions about the universe would you stop believing in a god? Is that why you believe in a god? I don't know the answers to your questions and I don't believe in a god because I only assume my ignorance and don't try explain it with an imaginary magical gap filler to make me feel better.

 

I agree with your assumed ignorance.

 

And I, yours.

 

You come here and you cannot express a simple thought without insulting people you think you are superior to - I think your "imaginary magical gap filler to make yourself feel better" has you fooled - big time.

You should stop embarrassing yourself.

 

You really should consider taking a moment to reflect on what you are trying to accomplish here by looking over my thread that has addressed that ad obnoxioulsy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-79

That is some very cute word-smithing however the fact remains you reject the theist proposition and you accept the atheist proposition that, Gods do not exist, if nothing else by labeling yourself an atheist, otherwise your reason is not relevant, only your rejection of theism is relevant. Only your final answer is relevant. No one gives a **** about your reason or how strongly you believe or disbelieve. The fact is you rejected, hence you disbelieve theism.

I repeat agnostics DO NOT accept the atheist proposition.

Your stated beliefs are grounded in cognitive dissonance.

You claim to accept and reject atheism at the same time and that is irrational.

 

Hahahaha!

 

I don't think I am superior. I am expressing my view point, as you did.
I am sorry I thought your faith in god would withstand answers scientifically to all your questions. That it, a god, does not need the mechanical needs/mechanisms of the universe to be understood for it to exist in your mind. I thought maybe you were a bit deeper on board with the concept, but I was wrong.

 

You need to buy a mirror - and look at it for a good long time.

 

And your flip answers lack a certain...introspection..

 

Nope, You are just not capable of understanding what the words mean. Being an agnostic has nothing to do with what you believe about God existence. so it has nothing to do with rejecting or accepting any belief in God.

Hey Kokomojojo, First you stop lying to yourself, then the rest of your lies fall away themselves. You are not an agnostic. You really believe that you do know that God exists, but its an intellectually vulnerable and tenuous position to take on a forum like this, isnt it? Too many run-ins with anti-theists. You aren't really agnostic at all. Its a shield you hold out to cover your vitals in these threads.

Real agnosticism is as comforting as it is humbling. Its great when you ditch the certainty and accept uncertainty as an evolution.

 

You accept atheism, therefore you cannot logically be an agnostic, sorry

The problem is the words do not mean what you claim they mean, hell I posted the definitions for you and because you are in denial.

The dictionary correctly presents the definitions and they are precisely clear, they contradict the nonsense you post.

Its hard to believe you are serious? Are you? you cant dodge the bullet that alrady slpit your theory 5ways to one!

“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

If you understood english you would know that means you cant profess to BELIEVE God does not exist by titling yourself as an atheist.

Looks like it is about belief after all, next rabbit hole!

Do you need multiple colors too?

Nah nothing you post makes sense so I am just trying to make rational sense out of your posts.

Im glad you are enjoying a religious moment out of it.

But I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, wow thats the same as the definition for agnostic, are you sure?

Projction, neoatheists that claim agnotic too are the ones who are using agnostic to hedge their bet, just in case they are proven wrong.

Real agnostics expect to see sufficient evidence soem day.

Yeh I dont have those religious moments, to me its just philosophy and reason, but I am glad its a euphoric event for you.

 

Not according to Huxley. Not content to accuse Bertrand Russell of lying and cheating, you also grossly misrepresent Huxley's theory, based on dictionaries made for the use of those simple, uneducated people who in your opinion must be lied to due to their inability to understand philosophical matters. So much for your dictionaries.

Huxley himself argues that agnosticism is a method, not a creed, and as such can't be defined in terms of content. The agnostic is someone who doesn't claim certainty for the truth of a proposition unless there's enough evidence to prove it. Huxley's definition doesn't say anything about the beliefs, or lack thereof, of the agnostics.

 

Your definitions are self selected by you and are too narrow or too old. That's why you like them! I am using definitions which I have provided links to, and I have posted twice that are broader and specifically include a more nuanced understanding of the diversity within the agnostic community.

The only belief expressed in agnosticism is a belief about whether god's existence is known and whether it is knowable or not. There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent between agnosticism and atheism or agnosticism and theism. You were wrong yesterday, you are wrong today, and you will be wrong tomorrow. Stop pretending to be something when you don't even understand what you claim to be. You are not an agnostic. Real agnostics understand that what you claim to know, and what you claim to believe are profoundly different and distinct concepts. You are just trying to stand on what you perceive as less soft intellectual soil in these debates. You already think you know that God exists, and that's okay. I won't make fun of you. I won't broach the topic of distinctions between knowledge and faith, and we can move on, you being 100% certain , and me being 100% uncertain.

 

You need a mirror.You are describing yourself. She came into the thread late. You started it, and with exactly the attitude you now accuse her of.

 

So you two like Russel? Chew on this for a while!

Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.
In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Bertrand Russell: https://books.google.com/books?id=Lm58AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA557#v=onepage&q&f=false

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Huxley's definition of agnosticism?

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said:

"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."

Agnosticism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Agnosticism

You BOTH BELIEVE Atheism is true!
Neither of you have given us any scientific evidence to justify your belief.
This is in direct contradiction to the definition of agnostic.

Agnostics REJECT atheism

Agnostics REJECT theism

You have no scientific proof for either!

Titling yourselves 'atheist' is a 'belief' claim, and you pretend its not.

You both are guilty of committing fusion fallacy!

Its not possible for someone who believes in atheist to 'legitimately' claim they are agnostic. Smith sold you peeps wooden nickels and you both thought they were real, sorry be the bearer of bad news.

At least now you know and the dissonance that the agnostic-atheist nonsense theory breeds allows people to begin the healing process.

 

Nope Already Debunked. 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.