Strong agnosticism would be, "I don't know and there will never be enough evidence to tell"

 

Wouldn't it be more like, "I don't know, and it's highly probable, in mans current form, that there will never be enough evidence to tell".

 

That's the agnostic that I am anyway.

Why does no one ever bother to actually use the correct words?

 

Agnostic!="I don't know"

Agnostic="It is not possible to know"

 

Agnostic!=third choice

Agnostic=modifier of theism or atheism

I'm relatively well versed on the topic, YDOAP, but I'm not sure I follow the distictions on the left column of your table above. You seem to have repeated the same variables more than once, and with more than one definition. Can you clarify further for those like me who are sometimes rather daft?

"!=" means "not equivalent to."

Of course. Simple, indeed, and I quite knew that already in other contexts.

 

Like I said, sometimes rather daft. I interpreted "agnosticism!" to be strong agnosticism, as opposed to agnosticism "!=".

 

 

Yes. You can stop laughing now. Nothing to see here. Please go on about your day.

agnostic

1.

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

 

 

Then, I’m agnostic type b.

 

A true atheist must then be 100% certain that deities of any description do not exist. None of this 99.9% crap.

So much for using the technical meanings of words...I'm tired of going over this.

I'll just go ahead and say it.

Adding an unprovable entitity adds NOTHING to our base of knowledge, and causes more damage than the benefit it offers.

As a scientist, I am not sure of ANYTHING.

As a reasonable intelligent human being, however, I am QUITE sure there is no God.

 

 

What does that make me? A reluctant agnostic? A comfortable and confident atheist? I don't really care. I'm SO tired of this nonsense, and my frustrations are not only palpable, but based in the evidence of the damage such beliefs have assisted, supported, and often motivated during the course of history and society.

 

 

Purple unicorns. They are no different, just more clearly recognized as ridiculous.

Now, now, iNow, we need to figure out what crude and worthless stereotype to apply to you.

This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists.

 

The problem is in the definitions of the words - requiring modifiers to express a position.

 

Atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Personally, I appreciate the distinction but can we come up with a new word so I don't have to say I'm a weak agnostic weak atheist? Makes me sound so...weak.

Personally, I appreciate the distinction but can we come up with a new word so I don't have to say I'm a weak agnostic weak atheist? Makes me sound so...weak.

 

How about, "theistic fence sitter."

Personally, I appreciate the distinction but can we come up with a new word so I don't have to say I'm a weak agnostic weak atheist? Makes me sound so...weak.

 

Yes, I was thinking that too. Especially because no one knows what a weak agnostic/weak atheist is, and would instead think weak and atheist or something like that. But without a good name for the position, you would have to explain your position every time someone asked, instead of just using a blanket label.

 

No such label exists, though. Maybe we should make one. Since it seems to me that weak agnosticism/weak atheism should be the default position of science, perhaps the name could be based on the root word "science". Perhaps "scientist" Perhaps it is unfair to hijack an already existing word, but lots of words depend on context. So if someone asks what religion you are, you could say "scientist" and it should be understood. Or, if you are willing to use two words, "agnostic atheist".

What does that make me? A reluctant agnostic? A comfortable and confident atheist? I don't really care. I'm SO tired of this nonsense, and my frustrations are not only palpable, but based in the evidence of the damage such beliefs have assisted, supported, and often motivated during the course of history and society.

 

Yeah, cuz before belief in deities humans were so cool to one another.

 

Unsubstantiated belief has proven benevolently useful - religion is the culprit for the malice. Religion doesn't require beliefs in fairty tales, it can be based on evidental truths. Deity is just a tool. Religion negotiates the suspension of individual thought - adhering to a set of beliefs and practices generally drawn up by others. And I don't think I have to tell you about group psychology, particularly within such a dogmatic vacuum. That's how you get the atrocities we read about in our history books.

 

How about, "theistic fence sitter."

 

Hey, I like it. That works.

 

So if someone asks what religion you are, you could say "scientist" and it should be understood. Or, if you are willing to use two words, "agnostic atheist".

 

Not bad either. I guess I could say "scientist", and then when they look at me funny I'll follow it up with "you know...a theistic fence sitter".

Personally, I appreciate the distinction but can we come up with a new word so I don't have to say I'm a weak agnostic weak atheist? Makes me sound so...weak.

Let's see, ephemeral existence, unsure if it's really there, shadowy concept....

 

 

You're an ag-ninja!!!

Oh dear... Now there are ephemeral throwing stars to consider. Lol...

Oh dear... Now there are ephemeral throwing stars to consider. Lol...

 

Ah, so that's where all the stars came from, and why they are all moving away from us. From these observations, we can also conclude that ninjas are getting weaker.

From these observations, we can also conclude that ninjas are getting weaker.

Did you hear that sound behind you, Mr Skeptic? No, of course you didn't.

 

 

 

 

Try not to worry.

Yeah, cuz before belief in deities humans were so cool to one another.

Recall that I never implied any such thing, nor does the fact that humans have fought before, after, and without religion negate my point that religion itself is and has been harmful.

Recall that I never implied any such thing, nor does the fact that humans have fought before, after, and without religion negate my point that religion itself is and has been harmful.

 

Glad we agree.

I'm still trying to figure out just who they are talking about in the Old Testament when, on every other page, God tells them, "Go war against those heathens and I will reward thee."

 

Was this a lightning bolt that followed them around? Was it an alien who had all of the enemy camps on radar? Was it a caballistic message embedded in the sands of time?

I’m sure I’ve missed something.

 

But is it true that a post of mine (here) has been deleted because it mentioned the book, “The Dawkins Delusion”?

 

That wouldn't happen, would it? Maybe I missed my own post

 

Either you think God/s exist,

 

or

 

you don't.

 

 

There is no 'agnosticism'. There is no fence.

That's odd - there are no deleted posts in this thread.

Try clicking your own name and checking out the "find all posts by this user" link.

 

[edit] Post was moved to a thread of its own. A thread you have already replied to.

It's so much easier when you can delude yourself into believing "the establishment" is censoring you.

 

Here, I'll help. Dawkins is a delusional idiot. He can't prove "memes" any more than he can prove god doesn't exist. Dawkins is a FRAUD!!

 

There...now let's see if they "move" this.

It would be much easier to clean up the off-topic posts if people would stop adding to their numbers while I am managing the thread.

Dawkins is a delusional idiot.

WOW!

But who's the idiot here?!?!