What being an atheist means in practical terms

I most certainly can

ah getting worried huh LOL

says the person that claims you can be both an atheist and theist at the same time LMAO

Im debating with uneducated neoatheists that all have an agenda and purposely equivocate meanings while at the same time telling me the speaker defines their words, I quote the person that invented the word

neoatheists dont define words, they just blather away and leave everyone guess what they mean

2+2 = 4
there is one and only one set of conditions that apply, neoatheists fraudulently pretend there are many

Yes they can see your equivocation. Hell I gave up asking you to eldefine and elaborate some of the wacked out **** you posted, its simply outside your knowledge base.

Its a neoatheist mental circle jerk, koko cleans up the mess

Neoatheists tried to steal agnostic NOT the other way around, please check your facts, and the correct definition and usage of agnostic does NOT hobble agnostic-atheist it proves the people that use it are not rational.

Claiming I am a theist is not rational either since I do not believe God exists and I do not believe God does not exist.

Unfortunately the dictionaries only print popular usage thus promoting an ad populum fallacy for its readers to use out here. How its popularly used and how it was meant to be used are often 2 or more different things

Sure:

Thomas Huxley was openly skeptical, as the biographer Janet Browne describes:

....A few months later, he was to coin the word "agnostic" to describe his own position as neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but one who considered himself free to inquire rationally into the basis of knowledge, a philosopher of pure reason [...] The term fitted him well [...] and it caught the attention of the other free thinking, rational doubters in Huxley's ambit, and came to signify a particularly active form of scientific rationalism during the final decades of the 19th century. [...] In his hands, agnosticism became as doctrinaire as anything else--a religion of skepticism. Huxley used it as a creed that would place him on a higher moral plane than even bishops and archbishops. All the evidence would nevertheless suggest that Huxley was sincere in his rejection of the charge of outright atheism against himself. He refused to be "a liar". To inquire rigorously into the spiritual domain, he asserted, was a more elevated undertaking than slavishly to believe or disbelieve. "A deep sense of religion is compatible with the entire absence of theology," he had told [Anglican clergyman] Charles Kingsley back in 1860. "Pope Huxley", the [magazine] Spectator dubbed him. The label stuck." —Janet Browne[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism


What Does Agnosticism Mean?

In the religious sense of the word, agnosticism means neither believing in nor disbelieving the existence of God. Religious agnostics say “We don’t know whether there is a God or not; it cannot be known.”

The problem you are faced with using agnostic-xxxxx is that:
You cant rationally accept and reject atheism at the same time, unless you are a bird of course.
Likewise you cant rationally accept and reject theism at the same time, again unless you are a bird of course.

So thats how agnostic applies to theist, atheist, pantheist, whatever, continuing.

But that’s only one of the ways the term agnosticism is used.

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

People who are politically agnostic don’t side with one political party or candidate. Someone who is brand agnostic is not loyal to any particular brand when buying products. In computing, “platform agnostic” is a term that describes software that runs well on different platforms. “Device agnostic” describes software designed to work on various devices, such as computers, tablets, or mobile phones.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-agnosticism/

Its simply irrational if not delusional to join agnostic position with any other position since agnostic specifically means not taking a position.


Cry me a river kiddies!
Hows living in the titanic working out for ya?

 

What Does Agnosticism Mean?

In the religious sense of the word, agnosticism means neither believing in nor disbelieving the existence of God. Religious agnostics say “We don’t know whether there is a God or not; it cannot be known.”

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-agnosticism/

atheists believe God does not exist
theists believe God does exist

agnostics do not accept that God exists and agnostics do not accept that God does not exist.

when you say agnostic-atheist you accept that God does not exist simultaneously rejecting that God does not exist and of course that is delusional

Personally I think its hilarious!

There are countless great sources in this day in age, starting with grammarly, you know the reelly smart people that have a full comprehension of the english language that state the contemporary meaning crystal clear with its usage proving neoatheists theories are nothing more than delusional out to lunch nonsense.

Here is another


What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?

https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/ Mixed-up Meanings Atheist vs. agnostic

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn’t believe in a god or divine being. The word originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine.
...

Its perfectly clear that neoathiests are presenting us with fabrications and falsifications again to cover up and protect their ignorance as usual and mine is the contemporary definition and theirs is political equivocation!

 

If you could, you would, and you don't.

Your playing equivocation games with yourself doesn't change what other people actually write.

First, "neoatheists" isn't how most of us here would define ourselves. Secondly, I doubt that all "neoatheists" don't define words. In fact, I've seen everybody so far in this thread define what they mean, and understand that there are other meanings of words. They clarify to avoid equivocation and confusion. You equivocate anyway.

1 + 3 = 4

1 + 1 + 2 = 4

You are the one who equivocates here, pretending people mean one thing by a word when they very clearly stated they don't mean that, and demanding they are in contradiction. That's entirely your game, not anybody else's here.

A word being initially created and used doesn't set its definition unchangeable forever. Gay is a good example of a recent change. It used to just mean happy.

 

We've been through this before. Matter of fact I gave you pages of citations, links and definitions that are not a 75 years old or older. You, a radicalized theist, want to blot all of them out because of your tedious feud with atheism. Agnostic atheists recognize that what we know about 'God', what we see as knowable about 'God', and what we believe about the existence of 'God' are very different concepts and they can intersect and combine in all sorts of ways that make both theistic and atheistic zealots uncomfortable. We agnostic atheists are not going to erased by your ilk. It's your little petty drama, find another way to engage atheists in your nihilistic war and leave us out of it.

 

Agnostic Definition & Meaning

one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Agnostic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


an agnostic does not take a position on either side of the argument, therefore you cant claim atheist which takes a position and agnostic which takes no position without being irrational.
There is no definition of agnostic that allows agnostic to take ANY position outside of neither.

 

strange I dont recall any such thing, prove it and cite it, lets take a look.

FALSE!
Its not a feud against atheist its a feud again grammatical ignorance and those who commit semantic fusion fallacy.

Hey guess what? Thats Neoatheists on this board! LOL

See this post, here it explains how to look at this

HAHA! NIce fantasy!

So far neoatheists demonstrate no comprehension of how the word agnostic is used. They get their usage off of fringe web sites come on here pretend they are experts when the whole concept is outside their grasp.

If you dont know, you say you dont know, you dont call yourself an agnostic because agnostics take no position.

agnostics reject atheism and take no position atheists take the position of belief that God does not exist.

Apparently its too difficult for neoatheists to understand what NO POSITION means.

NO POSITION MEANS you cannot claim to be an atheist and you cannot claim to be a theist if you want to claim to be an agnostic without equivocation and semantic fusion.

According to Huxley; Anyone who claims agnostic because they do not know something and claims another position at the same time either religiously or nonreligiously are liars both to themselves and others.

 

Its a war neoatheists started and we agnostics will finish very simply because the whole denialist premise you use is easily shown to be completely irrational. easy peasy.

 

Hey everyone, look at the actual link he provided if you click on it. This is what it shows. Do you see the game he plays here?

A very common meaning for Agnostic is people who say they don't and can't know if God exists or not. It is very possible to not know, yet still believe or not believe, and thereby be agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. Also note that koko constantly demands atheist can only mean "believes there is no God" when many of us instead define it as not-theist, meaning not believing there is any God. He then makes his silly claim that there is no difference between not believing God exists, and believing God doesn't exist, all the while claiming he neither believes God exists, nor believes God doesn't exist. He constantly contradicts himself while accusing others of self-contradiction they aren't guilty of.

 

and if they do not know or cannot know its not only irrational to take a position but also a lie to take a position.

the only rational response is I dont know, not agnostic since the underlying premise of agnostic is noncommital but then neoatheists have short attention spans and can only read the first line and misapply it.

 

Thomas Henry Huxley’s Agnostic Philosophy of Science
by Jiwon Byun
M.A., The University of Chicago, 2009
B.A., The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2007

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy
in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Philosophy)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)

August 2017​

​

His intention behind agnosticism was to establish and maintain epistemic merit of
science without any unknowable, metaphysical or theological, apparatus.

Science is the practice of agnosticism, and for this reason, our best way to knowledge.

Although agnosticism is commonly regarded as a religious position on the existence of God, the
coiner of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), had more to say.

This dissertation presents a more comprehensive understanding of agnosticism and its bearings on the conception of science by examining Huxley’s underappreciated philosophical works.

The most salient feature of agnostic position would be, ironically, refusal to take a position regarding the truth value of a given proposition. This shows that the mere absence of a belief or opinion does not sufficiently capture the state of being agnostic because it suggests that the state involves refusing.3 Consider, for example, the issue of the existence of a god, since agnosticism is most commonly thought of as a religious position. Holding an agnostic position about this issue means refusing to take both positions that a god exists and that a god does not exist.

Agnostics neither affirm nor deny the existence of a god; they are not those who simply lack a belief, opinion or interest regarding the issue.

WTF does a Phd in philosophy know compared to our brilliant forum members that accidentally looked in the mirror and have been blind ever since!​

https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/24/1.0354412/4&usg=AOvVaw0oJtkEgtrDEly_h63g-5Qe


That said agnostic-atheist is looney toons​

Sure if you want to pull it out of context.

Neoatheists no one can rationally claim atheist if God is unknown or unknowable.

On one hand you admit you dont know **** about it, but you choose atheist without any knowledge of God. That is not Huxleys brilliant 'scientific' method. That is neoatheist ignorance.

Grammarly explained the grammar to you and yet you remain in denial, proof you have an agenda. Apparently too complicated.

 

You believe many things you don't know for sure. You can have a very slight belief far away from thinking you actually know something. Or you can be so sure that you claim to know. Or you can have "faith" and convince yourself that you know even though you have no rational reason to (which I find irrational but some religious believers function this way).

 

But those who believe things they do not know do not claim agnostic, only neoatheists do. Those who do not know something simply claim they dont know, huge difference that escapes neoatheists bent on fusion fallacy.

Its perfectly legitimate to believe someting you do not know, its not legitimate to call yourself agnostic just because you do not know and its irrational to call yourself an agnostic if YOU TOOK A POSITION.

Agnostics are neutral, they take NO POSITION!

like the yardmeat post, neoatheists want to expand their membership, by hook or crook doesnt matter to them, so they opted to hijack agnostic and then have the gall to accuse me of hijacking their hijack LMAO

 

You mean out of context with your demanded use of the terms, which these people don't use in the first place. So it is you who is pulling out of context, not them. It is your equivocation, not theirs.

 

Not my problem if neoatheist have no clue what the words mean that they try to use.


Oh now you want to claim improper usage is proper anyway, damn there are no limits to how low neoatheists will go.

Like any philosopher, I demand in context proper usage, agnostics by definition are NEUTRAL AND TAKE NO POSITION!

To late like the other thread your doomed titanic has already sunk!

 

Hey you forgot the cut and paste job that gives you that tingly feeling in your loins. Let me help you.


Thomas Henry Huxley’s Agnostic Philosophy of Science
by Jiwon Byun
M.A., The University of Chicago, 2009
B.A., The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2007

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy
in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Philosophy)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)

August 2017


His intention behind agnosticism was to establish and maintain epistemic merit of
science without any unknowable, metaphysical or theological, apparatus.

Science is the practice of agnosticism, and for this reason, our best way to knowledge.

Although agnosticism is commonly regarded as a religious position on the existence of God, the
coiner of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), had more to say.

This dissertation presents a more comprehensive understanding of agnosticism and its bearings on the conception of science by examining Huxley’s underappreciated philosophical works.

The most salient feature of agnostic position would be, ironically, refusal to take a position regarding the truth value of a given proposition. This shows that the mere absence of a belief or opinion does not sufficiently capture the state of being agnostic because it suggests that the state involves refusing.3 Consider, for example, the issue of the existence of a god, since agnosticism is most commonly thought of as a religious position. Holding an agnostic position about this issue means refusing to take both positions that a god exists and that a god does not exist.

Agnostics neither affirm nor deny the existence of a god; they are not those who simply lack a belief, opinion or interest regarding the issue.

WTF does a Phd in philosophy know compared to our brilliant forum members that accidentally looked in the mirror and have been blind ever since!


https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/24/1.0354412/4&usg=AOvVaw0oJtkEgtrDEly_h63g-5Qe

[/QUOTE] Are you feeling it, Koko? Is this working for you? LOL

 

I feel nothing, its purely academic. Yes in fact it works for all rational people, the real question here does it work for you, or is it time to take a cruise up denial?

 

I am an agnostic atheist. I know what the term means. I have done the research. You can't cancel agnostic atheism out by quoting Huxley almost a century before. Take you anti- atheist bigotry elsewhere. Agnosticism is not your personal club.

 

I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who pointed out that when atheists get together they talk about God. That's not always true when people of the same denomination are together.

 

Oh sure you are.

great! good for you! show me a definition that proves you can call yourself an agnostic without being neutral. Make sure its between 2017 and today, since Doctor Byun published his thesis on agnostics in 2017, not a century ago.

August 2017
The correct meaning of agnostic was reviewed in 2017 by Doctor Byun not a century ago, so lets see your research that claims an agnostic can take a position?
Citation please.

Little nose tweek and now Im a bigot, looks far closer sore loser, but I will hold off on that till I see all your research, maybe there is some totally valid research out there that I did not review, so I await your citations.

It is however my personal religion and when neoatheists try to hijack it with easily provable nonsense I am obligated to point out how irrational neoatheist atheology is!

I await citations from that reseach you 'claim' you did!

 

They know what they mean by the term. Both the speaker and listener understand what is being said. Just because you don't like their meaning for the term doesn't mean they don't communicate well by using it.

Proper according to you. It makes you a bad communicator if you refuse to understand people because their word use offends your sensibilities.

It is adorable that you fancy your crackpot self a philosopher.

 

When atheists get together and note that they are atheists then yes, they talk about God. That's all atheism has anything to do with. When they talk about other things, the label "atheism" is irrelevant and most often people won't even notice the atheism in common. I've had friends for over a decade before we both realized we were both atheists.

 

See. This is the deal. I decline to show you definitions that meet your criteria because you don't merit it. I am the agnostic atheist, not you. I am not interested in your agenda driven game, where you pick the rules. You shuffle the deck. You cut the deck. You deal the cards, and then say, 'Lets play'.

Your remedy here, Koko, is not to be an agnostic atheist or a 'neo atheist' (whatever that is) or call yourself one. It's that simple.

I know what I know and what I do not. I know what I believe and what I do not. I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know whether deities exist or not. I do not believe in the existence of any, absent a showing of sufficient evidence to me, showing the existence of one.

So suck it up, buttercup, you don't get to define agnosticism or atheism for me, and then tell you I can't be one or both by your definitions.

 

Nope its your turn, I posted scholarly sources and you pretend that I concocted it, thats a got no answer exist stage left and a well known DDT.

Of course you wont post it, what you have for citations are not valid if you have any at all.

You are correct of course you can believe whatever you want, charles manson believes he did nothing wrong.

 

Ah ok, so you have your own private little irrational club

They misapply it, nice try though.

No proper according to the scholarly articles I posted that you continue to ignore. I suppose improper usage is offensive to an extent.

I never said I am a philospher please read for comprehension.

 

Or you could call it a different language, since it is different meanings for words that they speak and understand. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just foreign and for some odd reason distasteful and "improper" to you.

Only if you presume they are using your preferred definitions of the words, which they have clearly stated they are not. They are not misapplying anything, they are simply not speaking in precisely the language you demand that they do. Your confusion and perception of them contradicting themselves (when they don't) all stems from there.