It’s been common in the last couple of decades for atheists to attempt to redefine atheism as a “lack of belief in God” as opposed to “a belief that God does not exist.” I’ve examined the errors of this endeavor before (here, here, and here).
From time-to-time, you’ll also see atheists getting even more creative with their labels. One that has interested me is the label “agnostic atheist.” This so-called position takes the redefinition of atheism as its starting point, and then adds to it the uncertainty that is implied by “agnostic.” An agnostic atheist, then, is someone who lacks a belief in God but does not know for sure whether God exists or not.*
This is silly. There’s no such thing as an “agnostic atheist.” Someone is agnostic for one of three reasons: (1) He has no knowledge of the matter from which to form an opinion regarding God’s existence or non-existence; (2) He thinks the evidence is equally good for God’s existence as it is against God’s existence; (3) He thinks it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.
Neither of the first two are true of so-called “agnostic atheists.” They aren’t uninformed. They have clearly spent some time thinking about and investigating the question of God’s existence. Neither are they split on where the evidence points. They clearly think it’s more likely that God does not exist than that God does exist. They could think it’s impossible to know whether God exists, but if so, why would they describe themselves as someone who lacks a belief in God? That is a particular epistemic state, and that state does not follow from the belief that it’s impossible to know if God exists or not. If it’s not possible to know whether God exists, one could just as easily find themselves in the epistemic state of having a belief in God, lacking a belief in God, or having a belief that there is no God. So why does the agnostic atheist find himself in the epistemic state of lacking a belief in God instead of having a belief in God? It’s because he does not believe God exists.
At the end of the day, there is no sense in which they are truly agnostic. They are just plain ‘ol traditional atheists who are trying to sound more humble.
________________
*Some would define agnostic atheist to mean they don’t believe God exists, but are nevertheless not certain that this is true. While this is a laudable admission, it does not require the addition of the word “agnostic” because the concept of certainty is not baked into “theism” or “atheism.” It’s not as though one can only call themselves an atheist if they are absolutely certain that there is no God. The concept of certainty is not baked into the terms “theism” and “atheism.” See https://thinkingtobelieve.com/2012/03/02/dawkins-is-an-agnostic-why-certainty-is-irrelevant-to-defining-atheism/.
Thinking to Believe 
April 23, 2024 at 1:22 pm
You are correct Jason, I think more so, their claiming “agnostic” was due to their getting creamed in debates by Christian apologist and philosophers who pointed out that an atheist claim that there is no God, required omniscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 24, 2024 at 10:01 am
It always amazes me how often theists make claims about atheists that have nothing to do with reality…especially when they have access to atheists and can simply ASK them to clarify anything the theists don’t understand. I don’t make claims about theists unless I have both researched and spoken with them, which only makes sense.
“One that has interested me is the label “agnostic atheist.” This so-called position takes the redefinition of atheism as its starting point, and then adds to it the uncertainty that is implied by “agnostic.” An agnostic atheist, then, is someone who lacks a belief in God but does not know for sure whether God exists or not.”
First off, theism is a belief in a god or gods. The prefix “a” means “not” or “without.” Thus, there is no “redefinition” of the term the way we use it (unless you want to go back to biblical times, when Romans considered Christians to be atheists because they only believe in one god). Atheism simply means “without belief in a god or gods.” That’s synonymous with “lacking belief in a god or gods.”
Note how that differs from your definition of agnostic atheist, since it’s not about YOUR god specifically, but about any god and all gods. The largest organization of atheists clarifies it for theists who use incorrect definitions, as you can see here: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
“This is silly. There’s no such thing as an “agnostic atheist.” Someone is agnostic for one of three reasons: (1) He has no knowledge of the matter from which to form an opinion regarding God’s existence or non-existence; (2) He thinks the evidence is equally good for God’s existence as it is against God’s existence; (3) He thinks it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.”
Silly is narrowing your focus on YOUR God. I understand why you do this–because you lack belief in other gods and thus think the argument is about believing or not believing in your God specifically–but this is causing the problem with your understanding of what agnostic atheism means. If you expand your definition to ALL possible gods, that should help. To clarify:
As an atheist, I don’t believe any gods exist because I’ve seen no credible evidence for any. Period. The BEST theists have EVER managed to do is come up with a variety of arguments, all of which are fallacious in one way or another, mostly boiling down to an argument from ignorance fallacy (“I don’t know how this could happen naturally, therefore God”). Furthermore, as I pointed out in my previous post to you, arguments for God’s existence are NOT evidence for God’s existence.
As an agnostic, I cannot claim for certain that NO gods exist because I can’t possibly know everything–all I have is the lack of evidence for any gods. But to conclude from that that there are NO gods at all would be an unfounded claim. I can ONLY actively disbelieve in gods for which there are claims that SHOULD leave evidence if they are true.
Thus, I can conclude that the Christian God–as described in the Bible–does not exist, since there are many claims made in the Bible about that god and his actions that are directly contradicted by evidence (such as the biblical flood claim, or that God is good, for example). However, those Christians who believe the Bible is NOT literally true or that it contains mistakes/contradictions (which is, fortunately, most Christians) can dismiss those problems in the Bible as being caused by human writers. Thus, THAT version of God is unfalsifiable, and therefore could actually exist–but since there is no credible evidence FOR that God, belief in that God is not rational. The only RATIONAL position to take is “I don’t know if that god exists.”
So try expanding your focus to include ALL god claims and see where it takes you. Why don’t you believe in Allah, or the many gods of Hinduism, or Cthulhu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any of the other thousands of gods people believe in? You dismiss them because you’ve seen no credible evidence of any of them, right? Perhaps you’ve also heard of some of the contradictory beliefs in those religions. So just add YOUR preferred god to the list of gods you don’t believe in and you’ll understand where we are coming from, and why “agnostic atheist” actually does make sense as a label. For all we know, one of those religions might be true…but until we see credible evidence for one, we just don’t believe.
If you still don’t get it, then here’s an example that (mostly) avoids the religious biases: I write you a letter claiming I can fly, turn invisible and shoot laser beams from my eyes, but I provide you with no evidence. So do you believe my claim? The “gnostic theist” position would be, “Yes, I believe you, and I know you’re telling the truth.” The “gnostic atheist” position would be, “No, don’t I believe you, and I know you’re not telling the truth.” The “agnostic theist” position would be, “Yes, I believe you, but I don’t know that you’re telling the truth.” And the “agnostic atheist” position would be, “No, I don’t believe you, but I don’t know that you’re not telling the truth.” Which position do you think is the most rational? If you said the agnostic atheist position, you’re right! Why? Because those abilities don’t fit with observed reality. But perhaps it’s conceivable that you have access to some amazing technology, so you can’t be absolutely certain.
The burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the person making the positive claim. The gnostic theist and gnostic atheist both carry the burden of proof. The agnostic theist and agnostic atheist do not.
“If it’s not possible to know whether God exists, one could just as easily find themselves in the epistemic state of having a belief in God, lacking a belief in God, or having a belief that there is no God. So why does the agnostic atheist find himself in the epistemic state of lacking a belief in God instead of having a belief in God? It’s because he does not believe God exists.”
First, it’s not possible to know whether any gods exist BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE CURRENTLY HAVE. That could change if there actually are gods and they provide us with sufficient evidence to justify rational belief. Then I would become an agnostic theist (if the evidence is compelling but not overwhelming) or a gnostic theist (if the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling).
Second, you even posted a diagram of the four positions on theism/atheism and gnosticism/ agnosticism, so you should be able to see that agnosticism fits your first to epistemic states, but not the last.
“At the end of the day, there is no sense in which they are truly agnostic. They are just plain ‘ol traditional atheists who are trying to sound more humble.”
Well, I’m not humble and neither are millions of other atheists (and theists, of course). Also, there are plenty of agnostic theists (including probably most Christians) with doubts about the existence of God, but they do so for the same reasons I mention for agnostic atheists, not because they try to “sound more humble.”
But sure, if you insist on using definitions for agnostic and atheism that YOU want to use, rather than the ones WE actually use, you can make a case. But that would get you laughed at by most atheists. Would you think it’s reasonable for me to label Christians as “polytheists” because they believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost? No? That would be ignorant and it wouldn’t be reflective of what Christians actually believe, right? So why would you make the same mistake in regards to atheists?
LikeLike
April 24, 2024 at 10:15 am
and unsurprisngly, still no evidence for the imaginary friends of these theists.
LikeLike
April 24, 2024 at 10:20 am
“You are correct Jason, I think more so, their claiming “agnostic” was due to their getting creamed in debates by Christian apologist and philosophers who pointed out that an atheist claim that there is no God, required omniscience.”
I don’t know what world you live in, Danzil, but Christian apologists are the ones who regularly get “creamed” in debates by philosophical atheists. Just view any religious debate with Christopher Hitchins, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry or Matt Dillahunty, just to name a few. Or look at our debates, where you seem to have realized your arguments were full of fallacies and unsupported assertions, then ginned up a lame excuse to end the debates. I suspect you realized that the agnostic atheist position is the most rational position because you had no way to counter it.
I also think you’re conflating casual atheists who have no debate experience with philosophical atheists who know all the apologist fallacies. I’ve yet to see a Christian “excusagist” best an informed atheist debater. Slick but fallacious arguments never trump actual evidence.
LikeLike
April 24, 2024 at 9:19 pm
clubschadenfreude says:
Jason provides a plethora of evidence for an immaterial cause of the universe and why he thinks that cause is God. Just go to the main page for several recent posts which lay out several arguments to that effect.
LikeLike
April 25, 2024 at 1:05 am
”Jason provides a plethora of evidence for an immaterial cause of the universe and why he thinks that cause is God.”
Except that every single one of them is based on a fallacy or simple error of fact.
LikeLike
April 25, 2024 at 3:52 pm
Dingbat wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it bit him on the nose. We know that to be the case s because he routinely commits them. Besides, I wasn’t talking to him. He beyond ambiguity proved his dishonesty on these boards, so it’s pointless to interact with him. For proof, see the Bye Bye Roe thread.
LikeLike
April 26, 2024 at 1:54 am
Oh please, Scalia, put on your big boy pants and quit whining about an argument we had YEARS ago. I’ve offered you an olive branch to wipe the slate clean several times, but all you seem interested in is nursing your grievances and name-calling like a petulant child. Seriously, just grow up! Show some maturity and address my arguments on their OWN merit, rather than pouting and crying about an old argument where your feelings got hurt.
You claim to be a Christian, so act like it by forgiving your enemies and providing answers to challenges to your faith, rather than hiding behind insults. Ironically, you accuse me of committing fallacies when your EVERY RESPONSE is an attack on my character instead of addressing the argument—which you should know full well is an ad hominem fallacy. Have you heard the lesson about pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the log in your own? It’s in your Bible; you might want to read it sometime.
LikeLike
April 26, 2024 at 2:21 pm
Dumbo Derek plays the forgiveness card only as a rhetorical tactic because he’s never admitted to lying and the numerous other fallacies he’s committed. And until he does, the “slate” can never be wiped clean for the obvious reason, related numerous times now, that continued debated would yield more of the same. I tried multiple times to debate Dingbat, but he resorts to his predictable dishonesty every time. Bozo can forget it.
Now, for the other atheist here, I’m more than happy to interact with you about whatever objections you may have to Jason’s arguments. So long as you’re honest, I’ll treat you with respect.
LikeLike
April 26, 2024 at 4:31 pm
Jason,
Good post. I’ve always humorously likened “agnostic atheists” to “fence sitters” that shout only at the “theist yard” whenever they get the chance. They no longer “lack a belief” once they start going out of their way to criticize theism. They at least believe there are problems with theism, which leaves them where? Right. On the other side of the fence: atheism.
LikeLike
April 29, 2024 at 1:14 pm
“he’s never admitted to lying and the numerous other fallacies he’s committed.”
I never admitted to lying because I haven’t lied. Oh sure, I’ve been mistaken before, I’ve occasionally failed to write as clearly as intended, and I’ve even managed to mix up which topic I was arguing with which person (it can happen when you often have over a dozen arguments going on at the same time!). But lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive, and that I don’t do. I always endeavor to be as honest as I can. And as for fallacies, I’m interested in EXPOSING them, not committing them.
“And until he does, the “slate” can never be wiped clean for the obvious reason, related numerous times now, that continued debated would yield more of the same. I tried multiple times to debate Dingbat, but he resorts to his predictable dishonesty every time.”
Wow, talk about projecting! Every time you’ve gotten into an argument with me, you’ve resorted to fallacies and lies…yet I’M the bad guy here? Please, get real, Scalia. You just get upset when an argument doesn’t go your way, and you’re always the first to get ugly. The fact that I (almost never) sink as low as you do should be a hint that you’re the good guy only in your own mind.
Be that as it may, I HAVE apologized for my part in our arguments turning nasty (something you have been unwilling to do…so more projection there from you). And I apologize again, if it helps.
But I must have missed the part in the Bible where it says “forgive your enemies…but only they apologize first.” What I do know, though, is Mark 11:25, where it says, “if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” You believe in doing your God’s will, right? Or do you only follow the parts that are convenient to you?
“Now, for the other atheist here, I’m more than happy to interact with you about whatever objections you may have to Jason’s arguments. So long as you’re honest, I’ll treat you with respect.”
And good luck with that the moment you’re called out on your first fallacy. 😉
LikeLike
April 29, 2024 at 1:29 pm
”I’ve always humorously likened “agnostic atheists” to “fence sitters” that shout only at the “theist yard” whenever they get the chance. They no longer “lack a belief” once they start going out of their way to criticize theism. They at least believe there are problems with theism, which leaves them where? Right. On the other side of the fence: atheism.”
If I were to tell you I have over $1,000 in cash in my pocket right now, would you BELIEVE me? If you don’t, would that necessarily mean you believe I DON’T have over $1,000 in my pocket? Since you don’t know whether I tend to carry around large amounts of cash on me, you don’t know whether it’s a likely claim or not. So there’s no reason to believe I’m carrying that much cash, but that doesn’t mean you believe I am NOT carrying over $1,000, right?
If you understand that analogy, you’ll understand why agnostic atheism makes sense.
LikeLike
April 30, 2024 at 12:26 am
Lying as usual, Dumbo writes:
Of course he has, multiple times. And this isn’t a matter of opinion. I’ve demonstrated it several repeatedly. I’ve linked the relevant proof over and over. One would think that a person who claims to be intelligent would drop the matter (as he’s stated multiple times he would), but for some insane reason, The Dingbat has a pathological need to keep interacting with me when I’ve made it clear that I will not debate him—even jumping in when I’m talking to somebody else.
Anyway, the proof is there for anybody to read. Check out Bye Bye Roe wherein Derek’s lying is explicitly demonstrated. You can also read his pretending to know Thomism when he didn’t have a sweet clue what it was in Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause. He wants to give the impression that he knows what he’s talking about, but he’s really a dingbat who gets his backside handed to him every time he encounters an intelligent theist.
You can also read how he’s so obsessed with opposing theism, he ends up attacking his own argument. See the Tempted to Works Righteousness thread (Posts 362-383, reading only the posts by Dumbo and myself—paying particular attention to Post 383, which quotes Dumbo accordingly).
Dingbat sees Scalia commit a fallacy, does the hula dance, and then wakes up. It’s a figment of his imagination because his demented mind regurgitates it in his sleep over and over like some heroin addict needing another fix. I back up everything I say while the insane idiot keeps babbling.
Yep, Dumbo missed it by a mile, but since I’ve made it clear myriad times now that I’m not going to debate him, I’m content that everybody who really knows the Bible will just roll their eyes and laugh at Dumbo’s ignorance.
Now, I’m not going to change my mind. I will not debate an arrant liar like Derek. Against my better judgment, I allowed him to goad me into debating him additional times, and his performance never changes. He runs into logical difficulties, reframes the argument, commits obvious fallacies, and when they’re pointed out, he ignores the correction, and when pressed, he just lies his head off. He is a liar, and he knows he is a liar. There’s a world of difference between refusing to debate a dishonest person who doesn’t argue in good faith, and running from a debate because one is afraid of exposure. The former is the case here. I support my claims by offering evidence of previous debates. I’m more than happy for honest persons to decide for themselves for merit of those claims. Dingbat never does that. He just throws his baseless charges against a wall in the hope that one of them will stick. If he really believes what he says, all he has to do is write a very short post agreeing that the record indeed supports his claim and he too is content for others to decide for themselves.
Now, I’ll address Dumbo directly. I will not debate you because you are dishonest. You will not succeed, so it’s insane of you to keep trying.
Now, for the other atheist here, I’m more than happy to interact with you about whatever objections you may have to Jason’s arguments. So long as you’re honest, I’ll treat you with respect.
LikeLike
May 5, 2024 at 4:33 am
And once again we get a whining tirade from Scalia. What are you, twelve? Every time I call you out on your own claims about me being a liar, you post links to previous arguments that make it so clear how you fixate on your own misunderstood interpretations and refuse to accept corrections to those mistakes in those same threads. That’s just childish. At the very least you should give people the benefit of the doubt when you read something that you could interpret multiple ways. I do you that courtesy by not saying you’re deliberately lying when you make these claims (because unlike you, apparently, I know people can unintentionally misinterpret what another person says), but it’s a demonstrable fact that you make false claims all the time.
And as per usual, when you are confronted with your own inconsistent behavior, you immediately go into cognitive dissonance mode and lash out without providing any evidence for your claims. Again, the Bible is clear that you are to forgive your enemies. A few examples:
Mark 11:25: “if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
Ephesians 4:31-32: “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”
Colossians 3:12-13: “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.”
Furthermore, if you feel I’ve wronged you, the Bible tells you to suck it up:
Matthew 5:39: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Finally, when I ask you inconvenient questions about your religious beliefs, how about providing the answers, as the Bible instructs—and do it with gentleness and respect?
1 Peter 3:15: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”
So where is your forgiveness? Where is your willingness to debate? Where is your gentleness and respect? I’m certainly willing to provide you with all those things, after all (but what does that say when the atheist is a better Christian than the Christian?). Or are you one of those Christians who “creatively” reinterprets such inconvenient biblical passages to suit your own personal preferences? Honestly, that wouldn’t surprise me, given how you don’t seem willing to accept corrections of your faulty interpretations….
Anyway, feel free to once again formulate your response by pretending your comment isn’t intended for me. Don’t worry, I don’t take it personally. 😉
LikeLike
May 5, 2024 at 8:17 am
As predicted, Dumbo launched into a debate about forgiveness. I tell you, you can read the guy like a book!
Unlike Dingbat, I back up my claims with evidence. I proved he’s a liar via the links I provided, so he wants to distract by debating something else. He knows good and well that won’t happen. He’s a liar, and he knows he’s a liar, else he’d be content for the record to speak for itself. He knows the record shows otherwise. So, as liars do, he goes into deflection mode.
I guess that’s the only explanation for his continued replies even after he’s said more than once he wouldn’t reply!
LikeLike
May 9, 2024 at 9:56 am
“As predicted, Dumbo launched into a debate about forgiveness. I tell you, you can read the guy like a book!”
Ooh, what a brilliant prophecy, Nostradamus! What tipped you off that I would respond to your evasive response—I mean, aside from the fact that I virtually ALWAYS call out evasive responses? But sure, your powers of perception have us all in awe, Scalia. Bravo! 😉
“Unlike Dingbat, I back up my claims with evidence.”
Ah, so the ACTUAL QUOTES from the Bible about God’s requirements that you forgive your enemies ISN’T actual evidence? What do you want? Jesus to come down and confirm my quotes from the Bible in the flesh? Well, better get to prayin’!
“So, as liars do, he goes into deflection mode.”
Says the apologist who refuses to respond to the inconvenient evidence from the Bible that I’ve presented. Pot, kettle, black, Scalia. Well, projection mode is par for the course among apologists.
“I guess that’s the only explanation for his continued replies even after he’s said more than once he wouldn’t reply!”
Hmm, wasn’t I clear that I was done replying ON THAT THREAD? I’m pretty sure I did, since I almost always specify that when an argument is going nowhere and I lose interest in continuing. But in case I neglected to specify it on whatever thread you’re referring to, I’ll specify it here: When I say I’m done responding, it’s for THAT particular thread, not ALL threads. Oh, but clarifications are LIES in your eyes, aren’t they? Silly me for providing you with YET ANOTHER opportunity to get all worked up and claim, “Lies, lies, LIES!!!” But while I’m at it, I might as well confess that when I said “I’ve heard that a million times before,” it wasn’t REALLY a million times. You might want to add that lie to the pile. 😉
LikeLike
May 9, 2024 at 1:50 pm
Derek,
I will address your comment towards me:
“Since you don’t know whether I tend to carry around large amounts of cash on me, you don’t know whether it’s a likely claim or not.”
Yes. However, in the atheist-theist debate, both sides make claims. In your analogy, it only includes one claim rather than two contrasting ones.
“If you understand that analogy, you’ll understand why agnostic atheism makes sense.”
I understand that analogy, but I don’t think it corresponds to atheistic or theistic belief. Agnosticism doesn’t pair well with either. Unless you twist the terms to mean something else. Being an agnostic (a)theist is similar to being a married bachelor.
Let me ask you a question now: Can you be an atheist without being convinced that “no gods exist”?
LikeLike
May 9, 2024 at 2:08 pm
Dumbo continues his delusional ways. He knows I won’t debate him due to his dishonesty, and that he would launch into another debate if I showed from the Bible why he’s mistaken. And true to form, he tries to argue it anyway.
Anybody remember what I said about reframing? The “evidence” I was referring to was his lying. I back that up with hyperlinks, while his claims that I committed fallacies are neither quoted nor footnoted.
Nope, he was speaking rather generally, but given his current clarification (read: justification for lying), he can do what he wants, so long as Jason permits him. But he won’t goad me into another debate. Principled people don’t debate proven liars. Dumbo is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar.
LikeLike
May 10, 2024 at 4:54 am
“Let me ask you a question now: Can you be an atheist without being convinced that “no gods exist”?”
Absolutely! In fact, that is my position. Sure, having read the Bible and having found numerous irreconcilable contradictions, I have come to the conclusion that the Abrahamic God can’t exist as described in the Bible. So I don’t believe that THAT god exists.
But that doesn’t mean I’m claiming all OTHER gods don’t exist, such as the gods of deism. Alternatively, what if we exist as artificial intelligences in a simulated world created by an alien programmer? Would that programmer be a god? For all practical purposes, I would say yes. It wouldn’t have to be any more intelligent than your average computer programmer, but it would be essentially all powerful as far as our world is concerned.
Because these gods are unfalsifiable, one cannot rationally make the positive claim that they do or do not exist. I don’t BELIEVE they exist, but I certainly don’t claim they DON’T exist.
Analogy time again: If you were to buy a regular bag of sugar, and I were to then insist there is an EVEN number of grains of sugar in the bag, you wouldn’t believe me, right? But would that mean you believe there to be an ODD number of grains in the jar? Of course not. You just don’t believe either of us could know whether the total is odd or even without credible evidence they were precisely counted, right? By the same token, if someone tells me gods exist without providing any credible evidence for their existence, I’m not going to believe them. But that DOESN’T mean I believe that NO gods exist. I’m just not convinced they do.
“I understand that analogy, but I don’t think it corresponds to atheistic or theistic belief. Agnosticism doesn’t pair well with either. Unless you twist the terms to mean something else. Being an agnostic (a)theist is similar to being a married bachelor.”
A theist is someone who believes in gods. The prefix “a” means “not.” Thus, an atheist is not a theist. In other words, he doesn’t believe in gods (that INCLUDES “strong” atheism—a belief no gods exist—as a subset, but an atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in gods). Gnosticism refers to claims of knowledge about the existence gods. Thus, an agnostic does not claim knowledge about the existence of gods.
So how is an agnostic atheist like a “married bachelor”? I lack belief in gods, which makes me an atheist. But I also don’t claim to know whether they exist or not, which makes me an agnostic. Hence, agnostic atheist is the most reasonable term for my position. And from my experience, this is the position of the vast majority of atheists. We are not convinced that “no gods exist” (although there certainly are some SPECIFIC god claims that we actively disbelieve). To me, it’s the only rational position, as the following conversation should make clear:
Theist: “God exists.”
Atheist: “Okay, prove it.”
Theist: “No, you prove God doesn’t exist.”
Atheist: “Is that how you think it works? All right, then. I am God.”
Theist: “Prove it.”
Atheist: “No, you have to prove I’m not God. Apparently that’s how it works. Your rules. I’ll wait….
LikeLike
May 10, 2024 at 5:12 am
It’s cute how you pretend to be posting messages to other people when you’re clearly going back and forth communicating with me. But seriously, Scalia, that’s the blog equivalent of passing notes in fifth grade. I’m waiting for the inevitable “I know you are but what am I” retort….
“He knows I won’t debate him due to his dishonesty, and that he would launch into another debate if I showed from the Bible why he’s mistaken. And true to form, he tries to argue it anyway.”
Of course! I’m giving you EVERY opportunity to defend your beliefs. I’M not the one forcing you to refuse to debate; that’s all self-imposed. I won’t hold you to that pointless vow; I’m only interested in the debate.
But it’s pretty clear by now that the reason you don’t debate me is because you know your arguments are weak. Even if you think I’m a liar, a horse thief, a filthy brigand, and a general ne’er-do-well, if you actually had any credible arguments to mop the floor with me, you would do it because it would show me up, regardless of whatever nonsense you think I might say in response.
LikeLike
May 10, 2024 at 7:45 am
And Post 20 shows exactly why Dumbo isn’t going to get what he desperately wants (another debate with me). I explained why I use third-person terminology, but he typically forgets or pretends not to know. I don’t need an “opportunity” to defend myself because I’m perfectly capable of doing so. And I’ve linked our debates multiple times as proof of both Dingbat’s mendacity and the weakness of his arguments.
And, as I’ve stated multiple times, I am more than content to let readers decide for themselves the truth of my claims. Dumbo can’t say the same because he keeps yapping with whom he claims is engaged in a fifth-grade exercise. If he really believes that, he’d shut up. This “exchange” wasn’t initiated by me. Just scroll up to Post 5. I didn’t address him at all. I addressed another person who appears to be an atheist and didn’t hint at any other post. Dumbo couldn’t leave it alone.
Look at his last paragraph as further proof of how delusional he is. He claims that if I had credible arguments, I’d mop the floor with him. But I’ve “mopped the floor” with him multiple times (see the links). Dingbat argues and argues and argues. He commits fallacy after fallacy. He reframes and refuses to acknowledge his fallacies and when pressed, he engages in personal attacks. That’s why it’s a waste of time to debate him. Why take the time to craft good arguments with somebody who is dishonest and refuses to argue in good faith? He’s even lying now when he states that I’m somehow afraid of his arguments. He knows good and well I’m neither afraid of him nor do I lack any tool in my apologetic arsenal to fully engage him on any topic relating to the proofs for God’s existence. But because he wants to join the neener-neener effort (while complaining that I’m a fifth-grader), he’s got to employ the “same-to-you-but-what-am-I” routine. What a joke.
LikeLike
May 10, 2024 at 7:52 am
Brother Andrew, Post 19 should be all the proof you need that your conversation with Derek will go nowhere. You are, no doubt, shaking your head at his claims and how bad they are. And you’ll, of course, want to correct him. But 50 posts later, you’ll be at square one. Save yourself the trouble.
LikeLike