[W: 418] What all atheists believe

[William Rea]

There are authorities on such matters.
This is about the meaning of words.

You are free to call a dog a lion, and horse a duck.
Expect others to disagree with you.

The word "atheist" is about beliefs, and/or knowledge.
That is the business of philosophy.
The experts in philosophy say agnostics are not atheists. The beliefs are mutually exclusive. One can not have the belief there is no god, and at the same time, say they are undecided about the existence of god.
Mutually exclusive groups, according to the people who get paid for defining certain words.

Your acceptance of their facts, is inconsequential.

You are correct that agnostic is not synonymous with atheist BUT, an agnostic is not 'undecided', they have a positive belief, or a guess if you like, regarding knowledge that gods are either 'knowable' or 'unknowable'. Some 'agnostic extremists' have developed this into an absurd apologetic, hence we go around in circles of regression into ignorance because agnostics end up using the same appeals to ignorance that theists will use to justify the existence of gods. Some 'agnostic extremists' also claim that 'lacking belief' is their domain while simultaneously expressing beliefs about what we don't know. Funny old world.

 

[Norml]

Agreed. So what, specifically, is your point to me?

That was covered here...[W: 418] What all atheists believe

 

[Norml]

You are correct that agnostic is not synonymous with atheist BUT, an agnostic is not 'undecided', they have a positive belief, or a guess if you like, regarding knowledge that gods are either 'knowable' or 'unknowable'. Some 'agnostic extremists' have developed this into an absurd apologetic, hence we go around in circles of regression into ignorance because agnostics end up using the same appeals to ignorance that theists will use to justify the existence of gods. Some 'agnostic extremists' also claim that 'lacking belief' is their domain while simultaneously expressing beliefs about what we don't know. Funny old world.

I did not say they are not synonymous.
I said they are mutually exclusive.
That is a huge difference.

Your lack of understanding this simple but important fact muddles any point you attempted.

 

[RAMOSS]

That was covered here...[W: 418] What all atheists believe

The funny thing about that is that atheists tell me that they believe something other than what the opening post say they believe. SO, do I believe someone who is telling me what atheists believe, or do I accept what atheists say they believe?

What a conundrum!

 

[Quag]

You are correct that agnostic is not synonymous with atheist BUT, an agnostic is not 'undecided', they have a positive belief, or a guess if you like, regarding knowledge that gods are either 'knowable' or 'unknowable'. Some 'agnostic extremists' have developed this into an absurd apologetic, hence we go around in circles of regression into ignorance because agnostics end up using the same appeals to ignorance that theists will use to justify the existence of gods. Some 'agnostic extremists' also claim that 'lacking belief' is their domain while simultaneously expressing beliefs about what we don't know. Funny old world.

Some?
I never thought there could be such a thing as an extremist agnostic then Frank showed up and now you re telling me there are more of him?

 

[Quag]

I did not say they are not synonymous.
I said they are mutually exclusive.
That is a huge difference.

Your lack of understanding this simple but important fact muddles any point you attempted.

Why would agnostic and atheist be mutually exclusive?
If they are how an people describe themselves as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists?
Agnostic theism - Wikipedia
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Norml]

The funny thing about that is that atheists tell me that they believe something other than what the opening post say they believe. SO, do I believe someone who is telling me what atheists believe, or do I accept what atheists say they believe?

What a conundrum!

Yeah, if a bank robber says they a financial advisor, believe them.
If a muslim says they are Jewish, believe them.
And KKK, just some good old boys that like outdoor activities.

When an atheist says that other people are atheists, even though they deny it...let me guess...we believe the atheists.

Atheists get to say people with different beliefs from them, belong to their group, like it or not.

OR

Do we recognize professionals, whose business it is to explain the meaning of particular words.

If you are an atheist, this may just be too confusing.

 

[Norml]

Why would agnostic and atheist be mutually exclusive?
If they are how an people describe themselves as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists?
Agnostic theism - Wikipedia
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

I have you at a disadvantage. I read the OP.

You found some dictionary definitions you like. Isn't that peachy.

I heard of a white girl, with two white parents, four white grandparents, refer to herself as "black" , or "negro" .
Maybe all those people calling themselves Caucasian, should start being truthful.

People are permitted to call themselves anything they want. When the expect the educated public to go along with them, mental illness may be an issue.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yeah, if a bank robber says they a financial advisor, believe them.
If a muslim says they are Jewish, believe them.
And KKK, just some good old boys that like outdoor activities.
to pr
When an atheist says that other people are atheists, even though they deny it...let me guess...we believe the atheists.

Atheists get to say people with different beliefs from them, belong to their group, like it or not.

OR

Do we recognize professionals, whose business it is to explain the meaning of particular words.

If you are an atheist, this may just be too confusing.

THis is a straw man, and a distortion of what was said. And, this is a bad understanding about 'what the meaning of words are'. The meaning of words are how people use them/ The examples in this post are what is known as 'bad analogies.

The Oxford dictionary defines an atheist as

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"


It seems that the vast majority of atheists go with the 'lacks belief'


For you to deny that is showing bigotry towards atheists.. because you are misrepresenting what they say.

 

[Quag]

I have you at a disadvantage. I read the OP.

You found some dictionary definitions you like. Isn't that peachy.

I heard of a white girl, with two white parents, four white grandparents, refer to herself as "black" , or "negro" .
Maybe all those people calling themselves Caucasian, should start being truthful.

People are permitted to call themselves anything they want. When the expect the educated public to go along with them, mental illness may be an issue.

You failed to answer the question

Why are they mutually exclusive?

 

[Norml]

THis is a straw man, and a distortion of what was said. And, this is a bad understanding about 'what the meaning of words are'. The meaning of words are how people use them/ The examples in this post are what is known as 'bad analogies.

The Oxford dictionary defines an atheist as

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"


It seems that the vast majority of atheists go with the 'lacks belief'


For you to deny that is showing bigotry towards atheists.. because you are misrepresenting what they say.

Words have many meanings. One word, many meanings.

When the meaning of a word is not important, well, that is one thing.
When the meaning is important, it is reasonable to ask the professionals.
So is the meaning of this term unimportant? Then who cares?

If it is important, if it is worth discussing, what the professionals say is important.

The public frequently miss-uses words.
Sloppy language abounds. It is no argument that professionals have not considered usage, when they articulate the meaning of a word.
They have considered usage, and are not convinced it warrants changing the meaning of a word.

 

[RAMOSS]

Words have many meanings. One word, many meanings.

When the meaning of a word is not important, well, that is one thing.
When the meaning is important, it is reasonable to ask the professionals.
So is the meaning of this term unimportant? Then who cares?

If it is important, if it is worth discussing, what the professionals say is important.

The public frequently miss-uses words.
Sloppy language abounds. It is no argument that professionals have not considered usage, when they articulate the meaning of a word.
They have considered usage, and are not convinced it warrants changing the meaning of a word.

Yet, you use it differently than atheists say they do , and then , after using it differently than the people you are directing your comments to, you tell them what they believe. That is not credible. I will take the word of a self identified athiest over the word of someone who is trying to tell them what they believe , based on their preconceptions about atheism. This is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation', and reducing the credibility of the person who uses it.


Do I take the word of theologians who have an axe to grind against atheist, or the atheist him/her self about their beliefs. I will take the atheist.

As for the words of Anthony Flew, he was taken advantage of by christian apologists when he was having dementia. That unethical behavior reflects on everyone who tries to use that as an argument.

 

[Norml]

You failed to answer the question

Why are they mutually exclusive?

So, you fail to understand the OP.
You want me to dumb down my language so you can understand it.

Okay, or maybe you understand, but do not know how to construct a rebuttal.

Or, maybe you think this is a rebuttal.

An atheist, much like yourself, recognizes Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as an authority on the meaning of atheist, and petitions them to change the meaning that has been used for the last 50+ years.
This atheist finds that his readers have been confused about the meaning of the word, and Stanford has been adding to the confusion, by not accepting the meaning he prefers.

He asks them to agree with him, and his life will be much easier.
They respond, No can do.

And so, he departs, saddened by the fact the leading authority on such things, does not agree with him.

And so, with the meaning of terms as explained in the OP, atheists have the belief there is no god, agnostics have the belief they lack the knowledge to know if there is a god or not, and they are mutually exclusive groups.

A person can not believe both there is no god, and they are not capable of knowing if there is a god. The two beliefs are incompatible.
The two beliefs can not coexist in a healthy mind.

Your rebuttal, should you attempt it, will need to show why some other authority is better suited to define terms such as atheist, and agnostic.

In particular, since the two groups are mutually exclusive, how is it that atheists get to decide for agnostics, against the understood meaning...understood by professionals, that is.

 

[Norml]

Yet, you use it differently than atheists say they do , and then , after using it differently than the people you are directing your comments to, you tell them what they believe. That is not credible.

I present the views of recognized professionals.
THEY use it differently than SOME atheists.


Atheists are a small group. About 5% of the global population by common estimates.
They might even be considered insignificant.
If agnostics are added to their numbers, their size doubles.
Their motives, your motives, are suspect.

SEP had not been accused of any ulterior motives in their use of words. If this is not true, present your evidence.

I will take the word of a self identified athiest over the word of someone who is trying to tell them what they believe , based on their preconceptions about atheism. This is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation', and reducing the credibility of the person who uses it.


Do I take the word of theologians who have an axe to grind against atheist, or the atheist him/her self about their beliefs. I will take the atheist.

As for the words of Anthony Flew, he was taken advantage of by christian apologists when he was having dementia. That unethical behavior reflects on everyone who tries to use that as an argument.

If you have some evidence that any credible person had accused Stanford of improprieties, speak up.

You have a common attitude.
If you want objective views of atheism, ask an atheist.
If you want objective views of Christians, ask an atheist.
If you want objective views of agnostics, ask an atheist.
If you want objective views of anything, you must ask an atheist.
Only atheists are objective.
Just ask them. They will tell you.

 

[Quag]

So, you fail to understand the OP.
You want me to dumb down my language so you can understand it.

Okay, or maybe you understand, but do not know how to construct a rebuttal.

Or, maybe you think this is a rebuttal.

An atheist, much like yourself, recognizes Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as an authority on the meaning of atheist, and petitions them to change the meaning that has been used for the last 50+ years.
This atheist finds that his readers have been confused about the meaning of the word, and Stanford has been adding to the confusion, by not accepting the meaning he prefers.

He asks them to agree with him, and his life will be much easier.
They respond, No can do.

And so, he departs, saddened by the fact the leading authority on such things, does not agree with him.

And so, with the meaning of terms as explained in the OP, atheists have the belief there is no god, agnostics have the belief they lack the knowledge to know if there is a god or not, and they are mutually exclusive groups.

A person can not believe both there is no god, and they are not capable of knowing if there is a god. The two beliefs are incompatible.
The two beliefs can not coexist in a healthy mind.

Your rebuttal, should you attempt it, will need to show why some other authority is better suited to define terms such as atheist, and agnostic.

In particular, since the two groups are mutually exclusive, how is it that atheists get to decide for agnostics, against the understood meaning...understood by professionals, that is.

Lots of insults but absolutely no attermpt to explain why you beleive are mutually exclusive the closest you came was just repeating the claim
Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

 

[Norml]

Lots of insults but absolutely no attermpt to explain why you beleive are mutually exclusive the closest you came was just repeating the claim
Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

I just can not dumb it down any further.

I have answered your question, in detail. Several times.

Here is an idea.
Why don't you explain why there is overlap between the two groups.

 

[RAMOSS]

I just can not dumb it down any further.

I have answered your question, in detail. Several times.

Here is an idea.
Why don't you explain why there is overlap between the two groups.

It's not dumbing it down that is the problem . It is accuracy.

 

[Quag]

I just can not dumb it down any further.

I have answered your question, in detail. Several times.

No you havent you just repeated the claim with lots of irrelevant inuslts added in

Here is an idea.
Why don't you explain why there is overlap between the two groups.

OK
Agnostic/gnostic deals with knowledge
Atheist/theist is about belief
You can believe something and admit you do not actually know

 

[Norml]

No you havent you just repeated the claim with lots of irrelevant inuslts added in


OK
Agnostic/gnostic deals with knowledge

What kind of half true statement is this?
Knowledge requires belief.
No belief, no knowledge.

Agnostics have the belief that they lack knowledge...
If you prefer, Agnostics know they lack the knowledge...
They can not know something, if they have no beliefs about it.
You are free to argue otherwise.
This really is considered a truism. Knowledge arises from beliefs.

Atheist/theist is about belief
You can believe something and admit you do not actually know

This is interesting.
From your perspective, agnostics know something, and that knowledge makes them an atheist, from your use of the words.
From your perspective, atheists do not actually know anything (in particular), and it is absence of a particular belief, that makes them an atheist, as you use the terms.

Agnostics know, atheists lack a belief.
Is it possible to know what an agonistic knows, and lack the same beliefs that an atheist lacks? I imagine so, but it does not sound right.
Can you explain how that would work?

 

[Quag]

What kind of half true statement is this?
Knowledge requires belief.
No belief, no knowledge.

Agnostics have the belief that they lack knowledge...
If you prefer, Agnostics know they lack the knowledge...
They can not know something, if they have no beliefs about it.
You are free to argue otherwise.
This really is considered a truism. Knowledge arises from beliefs.

Irrelvant to anything I said, but you seem to be using Angels distorted view of knowledge.
Belief is not knowledge you can have belief and not have knowledge.

This is interesting.
From your perspective, agnostics know something, and that knowledge makes them an atheist, from your use of the words.
From your perspective, atheists do not actually know anything (in particular), and it is absence of a particular belief, that makes them an atheist, as you use the terms.

Agnostics know, atheists lack a belief.
Is it possible to know what an agonistic knows, and lack the same beliefs that an atheist lacks? I imagine so, but it does not sound right.
Can you explain how that would work?

Whole lot of strawmen you got going there.

You can believe something and admit you do not actually know

That is what I said, not sure how you or why you are trying to twist it into something else
but Ill make it more specific for you

A person can beleive in God(s) but admit that they do not actually know if God(s) exist

 

[Drowning Man]

What kind of half true statement is this?
Knowledge requires belief.
No belief, no knowledge.

Agnostics have the belief that they lack knowledge...
If you prefer, Agnostics know they lack the knowledge...
They can not know something, if they have no beliefs about it.
You are free to argue otherwise.
This really is considered a truism. Knowledge arises from beliefs.

So do you understand what faith is?
It is belief without knowledge.

Belief and knowledge are two separate things. Agnosticism is about knowledge and Atheism is about belief.

This is interesting.
From your perspective, agnostics know something, and that knowledge makes them an atheist, from your use of the words.

No...Agnostics don't know something. They can have belief or not.
You can be an agnostic theist (a person that doesn't know if a God or set of gods exist, but believe in them on faith)
You can be an agnostic atheist (someone who doesn't believe, but doesn't know if there is a God or set of gods or not)
You can be a gnostic theist (a person that believes and knows that there is a God or set of gods)
You can be a gnostic atheist (a person that doesn't believe in and knows that there is no God or set of gods)

 

[Norml]

Irrelvant to anything I said, but you seem to be using Angels distorted view of knowledge.
Belief is not knowledge you can have belief and not have knowledge.

Of course you can. I never implied otherwise.
Here is what I said.
You can not have knowledge, without belief.
If you believe otherwise, make your argument.

Whole lot of strawmen you got going there.

And yet, no evidence of even one.

That is what I said, not sure how you or why you are trying to twist it into something else
but Ill make it more specific for you

A person can beleive in God(s) but admit that they do not actually know if God(s) exist

Wow, what a tangent.

 

[Drowning Man]

Of course you can. I never implied otherwise.
Here is what I said.
You can not have knowledge, without belief.
If you believe otherwise, make your argument.

But that doesn't make knowledge and belief the same thing, right?

You can't have a square without it also being a rectangle. But not every rectangle is a square.

 

[weaver2]

Of course you can. I never implied otherwise.
Here is what I said.
You can not have knowledge, without belief.
If you believe otherwise, make your argument.

Knowledge without belief: I acknowledge the content of Trump's tweets but do not believe they represent the true facts.

Conservatives acknowledge that they know about evolution because they protest the teaching of it in schools. However, they do not believe in it.

Conservatives don't believe women have a right to make private decisions about their private lives . However they certainly know about that right because they evoke it for themselves over gun ownership all the time.

 

[Quag]

Of course you can. I never implied otherwise.
Here is what I said.
You can not have knowledge, without belief.
If you believe otherwise, make your argument.

What part of irrelevant didn't you understand?

And yet, no evidence of even one.

From your perspective, agnostics know something, and that knowledge makes them an atheist, from your use of the words.

The above is your quote which is NOT what I said, ie it was a strawman

Wow, what a tangent.

No tangent at al it pertains to what I was saying
Gnostic/agnostic are terms dealing with knowledge
Theist/atheist are terms dealing with belief
You can believe something and not know. You claimed the terms are mutually exclusive you have failed to provide any reason why they would be and ignored what I have said showing that they can be interconnected