Originally posted by @tom-wolsey ...agnostics believe "that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."...
I assume that is two separate positions and not just one position busy making waffles. Obviously if the part you bolded was correct then the pre-bold part never needed to be said.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey That is a superior position, I agree. But it's not what I'm being told is the actual agnostic position. We "can't know" is a necessary part. By today's official definition according to most atheists I talk to about it and according to Dictionary.com -- agnostics believe "that nothing is known [b]or can be known of the existence or nature of God or ...[text shortened]... he agnostic into an atheist, assuming he or she has any intent on making a rational truth claim.[/b]
Originally posted by @apathist I assume that is [b]two separate positions and not just one position busy making waffles. Obviously if the part you bolded was correct then the pre-bold part never needed to be said.[/b]
Agreed. There is a redundancy there.
Meanwhile back at the Daily Planet: Most atheists if pressed say they would believe if sufficiently and satisfactorily convinced otherwise. THIS statement allows for the existence of God. Whereas the agnostic statement (see above) doesn't.
By definition, the 2 groups have apparently reversed roles. This phenomenon contributes to believers' struggle to see any relevant difference between the two groups.
Back in the day the terms were simple: If you weren't sure either way, you were an agnostic, and if you were a 100% confident disbeliever, you were an atheist. Both groups have redefined themselves over the past couple or so decades to the point where it's just a big blob of wishy-washy unbeliever goo.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey Back in the day the terms were simple: If you weren't sure either way, you were an agnostic, and if you were a 100% confident disbeliever, you were an atheist. Both groups have redefined themselves over the past couple or so decades to the point where it's just a big blob of wishy-washy unbeliever goo.
Be that as it may, but one could also argue that the world of theism is just a big blob of wishy-washy believer goo.
How about this:
theist = a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey ... Most atheists if pressed say they would believe if sufficiently and satisfactorily convinced otherwise. THIS statement allows for the existence of God. Whereas the agnostic statement (see above) doesn't.
Um, you've met the fact that there are types of agnosticism. Your claim does apply to one of those types.
By definition, the 2 groups have apparently reversed roles. This phenomenon contributes to believers' struggle to see any relevant difference between the two groups.
Not sure what you mean.
Back in the day the terms were simple: If you weren't sure either way, you were an agnostic, and if you were a 100% confident disbeliever, you were an atheist. Both groups have redefined themselves over the past couple or so decades to the point where it's just a big blob of wishy-washy unbeliever goo.
If I say I'm agnostic, you still don't know whether I believe in gods or not. The term can't be understood unless we climb above knee-jerk a bit.
Originally posted by @apathist If I say I'm agnostic, you still don't know whether I believe in gods or not. The term can't be understood unless we climb above knee-jerk a bit.
All I know is, you're part of the goo. And I shall poke you with a stick.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey Agreed. There is a redundancy there.
[b]Meanwhile back at the Daily Planet: Most atheists if pressed say they would believe if sufficiently and satisfactorily convinced otherwise. THIS statement allows for the existence of God. Whereas the agnostic statement (see above) doesn't.
By definition, the 2 groups have apparently revers ...[text shortened]... past couple or so decades to the point where it's just a big blob of wishy-washy unbeliever goo.[/b]
. "believers' struggle to see any relevant difference between the two groups".
There is no relevant difference, right?
"Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." was allegedly spoken by Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers, the first major military action of the Albigensian Crusade. A direct translation of the Latin phrase would be "Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own." - Wikipedia
In this case there is no need to differentiate between nonbelievers, eh? None are his own, right?
Originally posted by @js357 . "believers' struggle to see any relevant difference between the two groups".
There is no relevant difference, right?
"Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." was allegedly spoken by Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers, the first major military action of the Albigensian Crusade. A direct translation of the Latin ...[text shortened]... n this case there is no need to differentiate between nonbelievers, eh? None are his own, right?
I was speaking in the context of these internet discussions and the wishy-washy grey area intermingling of the 2 groups and the sometimes heated debates with atheists who insist they aren't agnostics.
As far as the differentiation between those who die unrepentant pagans and unbelievers? There is none. They all go in the same bucket.
25 May '18 00:20
Step by step destruction of Agnosticism
Back to Top