Agnostic atheism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Now do us all a favour and stfu.

Originally posted by @divegeester
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Now do us all a favour and stfu.

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God;.."

The operative word in that assertion is 'failed'.

Originally posted by @secondson
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God;.."

The operative word in that assertion is 'failed'.

Well, it's only natural for you to believe that someone joining your religion has been "successful" and that someone joining a different religion or not being persuaded by any religion has "failed" in your eyes. There's a great deal of partisan sentiment and black-and-white groupist certainty in pretty much all the major retail religions.

Originally posted by @divegeester
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Now do us all a favour and stfu.

Roman1009 wasn't genuinely interested.

Originally posted by @fmf
Roman1009 wasn't genuinely interested.

Romans1009, if you change your mind and become interested, take a look at this Thread 175618.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, it's only natural for you to believe that someone joining your religion has been "successful" and that someone joining a different religion or not being persuaded by any religion has "failed" in your eyes. There's a great deal of partisan sentiment and black-and-white groupist certainty in pretty much all the major retail religions.

How quickly you go off topic.

The topic and subject is about "if a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God,.."

He has 'failed'.

Furthermore, the second half of the quote, "it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God;.." , does not rationally follow the idea of the first, in that he, the man, "has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God,.."

How is it natural and rational to draw a conclusion about the existence of God when a man fails to find a reason for whether there be a God or not?

Sounds more as if that man is lost in the uncertainty of his own ability to reason rationally, even about his own existence.

Originally posted by @secondson
How quickly you go off topic.

The topic and subject is about "if a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God,.."

He has 'failed'.

Furthermore, the second half of the quote, "it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God;.." , does not rationally follow the idea of the first, in ...[text shortened]... s lost in the uncertainty of his own ability to reason rationally, even about his own existence.

Yes I know what you mean by "failed". I have also "failed" to become a Muslim. And "failed" to become a Sikh. I also "failed" to find a place to live in Semarang, so I moved to a place in Magelang instead.

If I ever start thinking you have any credible information about a creator being, I will let you know. Your particular religion has "failed" thus far.

If you want to claim in the meantime that this means I have "failed" to reason rationally, even about my own existence, then you go for it. Whatever floats your rhetorical boats.

Originally posted by @secondson
How quickly you go off topic.

The topic for me is agnostic atheism which "...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 agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact." [wiki]

So what's the background here?

Why should I care about this entry in Wikipedia?

Originally posted by @philokalia
So what's the background here?

Why should I care about this entry in Wikipedia?

Romans1009 didn't know what the term "agnostic atheism" meant - and he kept asking about it - so a thread has been started for his benefit.

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes I know what you mean by "failed". I have also "failed" to become a Muslim. And "failed" to become a Sikh. I also "failed" to find a place to live in Semarang, so I moved to a place in Magelang instead.

If I ever start thinking you have any credible information about a creator being, I will let you know. Your particular religion has "failed" thus far.
...[text shortened]... lly, even about my own existence[/i], then you go for it. Whatever floats your rhetorical boats.

The topic isn't about you either.

Perhaps your failure to be objective is the cause of your inability to debate rationally.

"If" you "ever start thinking" I "have any credible information about a creator being", then you're looking in the wrong direction.

Objectively speaking, "credible information" exists all around you independent of your ability to comprehend it. Rational comprehension is dependent on objective observation. Subjectivity follows after.

Belief, or faith, is the subjective response to rational objective observation.

Not believing, based on the idea that there is a lack of "credible information", is the subjective response to a negative, which is irrational.

To simply say "I don't know" would be the honest rational response when one fails to see and understand the meaning of the credible information that exists around him.

Originally posted by @secondson
The topic isn't about you either.

For me personally, it is, in a way, because it was me self-identifying as an agnostic atheist on another thread that has given rise to this thread.

Originally posted by @fmf
The topic for me is agnostic atheism which "...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 agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact." [wiki]

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position held by those that base that belief on unknown information.

Not a rational position to hold when there's no evidence for it.

Originally posted by @secondson
"If" you "ever start thinking" I "have any credible information about a creator being", then you're looking in the wrong direction.

You have a belief in supernatural creator being do you not? And you reckon you have some information about it and you believe everyone who hears it ought to believe it too, do you not? That's what I was referring to.

Originally posted by @secondson
Objectively speaking, "credible information" exists all around you independent of your ability to comprehend it. Rational comprehension is dependent on objective observation. Subjectivity follows after.

Your use of the words "objectively speaking" when you refer to your personal superstitions, and the ancient mythology that just so happens to appeal to you, doesn't work on me. Try that bit of rhetoric on someone else.