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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 24, 2024 at 10:15 am
and unsurprisngly, still no evidence for the imaginary friends of these theists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 13, 2024 at 7:56 am
I don’t know and perhaps can’t know the true nature of ultimate reality. This makes me, by definition, agnostic. And so are you
I don’t believe in God(s). This makes me, by definition, atheist. And so are you with regard to every God but yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 13, 2024 at 9:01 am
Hello, Frank! You write:
Your sentences appear to be in tension, so, hopefully, you will clarify. Your first sentence states that you perhaps cannot know the true nature of ultimate reality. What’s the difference between reality and ultimate reality? Also, do you see a difference between not knowing something that’s knowable and not knowing something that’s unknowable? Is it not one thing to candidly claim ignorance yet be open to persuasion and another to claim that something cannot be known? If your qualifier is “perhaps,” it then appears possible to obtain genuine knowledge. So far, so good, but you then say, “[a]nd so are you.” How do you know what others know or don’t know (or cannot know)? Is the knowledge you’re appearing to assert “ultimate” or is it merely your subjective opinion?
You continue:
We believe there are very good reasons to believe in God, and that there is only one God. Indeed, we believe this can be proved. Now, at this point it is irrelevant whether you agree with us. The relevant question at this stage is whether you believe that you can disprove the existence of all gods. If not, then we’re not in the same boat. I’m not a monotheist merely because I’ve chosen to be or because insufficient proof has been offered that multiple gods exist. I’m a monotheist because I believe that the cosmos points to His existence and that it is metaphysically impossible, even in principle, for there to be more than one God. So, do you assert a proof that negates the existence of God?
Thanks, in advance, for addressing my questions.
LikeLike
May 19, 2024 at 5:16 am
LOL! Scalia, you’re so easy to bait! Just take a look at the some of the claims you’ve made in this thread alone insisting you will not debate me:
“I’ve made it clear that I will not debate him”
“I’m not going to debate him”
“I will not debate an arrant liar like Derek.”
“I will not debate you because you are dishonest.”
“He knows I won’t debate him due to his dishonesty”
“But he won’t goad me into another debate.”
How many posts do I have to make before you realize…I’ve been goading you into another debate over and over again? All I have to do is make some claim about your behavior, and BOOM, you come right back trying to debate me—not the topics this blog is about, of course, but clearly you are debating me on the topics I bring up. Go back over your posts and you’ll see how much debating you’ve done in response to my posts (you were even prophetic when you posted, “I allowed him to goad me into debating him additional times”).
Why have I done this? To make a point. When people make statements that may sound inconsistent, do you ask them to clarify? No, you label them a LIAR. Furthermore, you ignore any clarification, nuance or correction they may offer. So what I’ve done here is show you the folly of such behavior. You’ve stated over and over again that you will not debate me…while debating me in every comment.
Now, if I were as uncharitable as you, I would call you a LIAR, a hypocrite and a bunch of childish names. But I’m not going to do that. I understand that people make mistakes, that they say one thing while intending it to be understood differently, or that they don’t realize the hypocrisy in their own actions. So I can forgive that, let it be water under the bridge. This back and forth sniping we’re doing is pointless, unworthy, and it’s not the purpose of this blog.
So how about we debate the theological topics like adults? I don’t care if you don’t trust me, and frankly you don’t have to. Either we can support our own arguments or we can’t, and if I make an unsupported claim you don’t believe, feel free to fact check it and call me out on it. I’m perfectly fine with that.
Or are you just going to continue to sulk and whine? Your choice, but that behavior only serves to reflect badly on Christians. I don’t think you want that.
LikeLike
May 19, 2024 at 5:21 am
“And you’ll, of course, want to correct him. But 50 posts later, you’ll be at square one.”
Debate doesn’t mean you’re right and your opponent is wrong. You may BELIEVE in your claim, but if you can’t adequately defend it and your opponent has the better argument, the reason you’re back at square one is because you refuse to acknowledge having failed to provide a compelling argument.
LikeLike
May 19, 2024 at 5:52 am
“What’s the difference between reality and ultimate reality?”
Reality is the world we observe. Ultimate reality is what may be behind that reality. For instance, it’s conceivable that we live in a simulated world (in fact, there are compelling arguments that it’s more likely this world is simulated than the “real” world). And if we live in such a world, then our “reality” doesn’t change—falling still hurts, we can still land a spacecraft on a distant planet with calculated precision, etc.—but the “ultimate reality” is that we are artificial intelligences in a computer simulation. (I’m not saying I believe this, I’m just using it to illustrate the point.)
“We believe there are very good reasons to believe in God, and that there is only one God. Indeed, we believe this can be proved.”
Now THIS is a topic worthy of discussion. I realize you detest me and don’t want to debate me (despite continuing to do so), but I genuinely would like to know your BEST reason for believing in God—and one god at that—and what is your BEST proof that God exists.
I’m pretty sure that if you deign to provide me with your answer that it’ll be a fallacy…but I’m open to the possibility you’ve actually managed to prove what thousands of people have tried and failed over millennia to do.
“Now, at this point it is irrelevant whether you agree with us. The relevant question at this stage is whether you believe that you can disprove the existence of all gods.”
Well, we’re not off to a good start, because you’re committing a burden of proof fallacy: https://quillbot.com/blog/burden-of-proof-fallacy/. It is not the job of the atheist to disprove the existence of all gods, because atheism is just a one-word answer to the question “Do you believe in God.” And that answer is “No.”
If I were to tell you that I can jump to the moon and back, you would surely say no. So would it make sense for me to insist that you have to prove I can’t jump to the moon and back? Of course not! The burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the person making the POSITIVE claim, and claiming gods exist is the positive claim.
“I’m a monotheist because I believe that the cosmos points to His existence.”
Okay, so let’s give you another attempt. Provide your evidence that God exists. (And I really, really hope it’s not just an attempt to explain a mystery by evoking an even greater mystery.…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 19, 2024 at 6:12 am
Thanks for your commitment to honesty, Derek.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 19, 2024 at 7:07 am
You’re most welcome, Frank.
But cue Scalia’s objection in 3…2…1…
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 20, 2024 at 9:33 pm
@Frank J. Peter,
Given your additional reply, it is clear that you have both subscribed to this thread and are reading replies, even to other posters. So, may I respectfully ask why you didn’t reply to my questions?
LikeLike
May 20, 2024 at 9:47 pm
As shown repeatedly, I do not claim that Derek is a liar, a reframer and a fallacy maker; I have proved it. They are not matters of inconsistent statements or points of clarification.
He laughingly thinks that my refusal to debate him on topic matters due his unwillingness to debate in good faith is somehow the same as derision for his continued point-missing and warnings to new readers that it is worse than useless to engage with a dishonest person. Readers over the years have consistently noticed this about him. Derek is a liar, and he knows that he is a liar, which is the motivation behind his obsession to deflect the links and to prove himself just once (after striking out multiple times) in debating me.
Cue Dumbo’s (fifth grade?) goading in 3…2…1…
LikeLike
May 20, 2024 at 10:25 pm
And just a follow-up about Derek’s consistent point-missing. He is truly a case study in apparent paradoxes. He appears to be intelligent to a degree, but he badly, and I mean very badly, misses the point of arguments he disagrees with, even from those who are on his side of the fence. There are only two logical options for this: He is either deliberately reframing said arguments to attack a scarecrow, or he really doesn’t have a sweet clue how to interpret them. Given his proven mendacity the former is the case. Thus, it really isn’t a paradox. Derek is simply dishonest.
And this is not a two-way street. Derek has repeatedly commended me for understanding his points when my fellow theists misstated them. Regardless the level or intensity of disagreement, I do my utmost to both understand my interlocutor’s arguments and to present them in their best possible light. As someone once said, one should endeavor to understand and argue an opposing position better than one’s opponent. Derek prefers to straw-man matters (e.g., his definition of Christian goodness via his personal interactions with Christians as opposed to the well-known definition held by the significant majority of Christians). Indeed, when he was repeatedly told that he was misrepresenting the Christian position, he didn’t even bother to look it up! For if he did so, he would be forced to admit that he was arguing a straw man, so he continued to defend his anecdotal definition against the actual one (which he’s still ignorant of).
And, Derek’s goading notwithstanding, these posts are not for his benefit. He’s proven that logical arguments have no effect on him. These posts are for those who are wondering what all the hullaballo is about. And, yes, every time Derek misstates Jason’s arguments or another person’s posts, I will provide the proof of his dishonesty as a warning to others to just leave him alone with respect to the topic. He wants the satisfaction of “refuting” what Jason says without a response from the commentariat because he’s obsessed, by his own admission, with the real or perceived political ramifications of these arguments. He may get away with that on other sites, but not here.
LikeLike
May 26, 2024 at 10:33 am
“(after striking out multiple times) in debating me.”
Winners don’t sulk and whine, Scalia. That much should be obvious.
“Derek is simply dishonest.”
As I’ve said before, it’s no skin off my nose if you believe that. I tell you honestly, deeply, and from the heart that I couldn’t care less what you think of me. So I’m fine with you assuming I’m a liar—in fact, let’s just assume I’m the WORST liar humanity has ever wrought. Let’s also assume I’m a horse thief, a rustler, a tree rapist and a murderer of chicken farmers. Furthermore, let’s assume you’re the coolest, smoothest, bestest debater in the whole wide world. Let’s just assume all that and go straight to debating theological topics, which is what we’re supposed to be doing on this blog. If I make bad arguments, take the opportunity to knock me down a peg by destroying my claims. It doesn’t matter if I straight-up lie in my own posts because you can EXPOSE them for the world to see! You’ll be a hero to theists everywhere! Or you can be a coward and hide behind your “Derek is a meanie who lies!” rhetoric…which doesn’t advance the discussion one millimeter.
“Derek prefers to straw-man matters (e.g., his definition of Christian goodness via his personal interactions with Christians as opposed to the well-known definition held by the significant majority of Christians).”
Ah good, finally a theological argument worth having!
First, good luck finding virtually ANY Christian denomination claim about Christianity that isn’t opposed by other denominations. There are literally THOUSANDS of denominations of Christianity out there, and ALL of them disagree—often violently—with other denominations. If you believe one of the versions of Christianity that has a different definition of Christian goodness than what I’ve listed, good for you—but the Bible does not come with a key to determine whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong, so even if your particular definition happens to be in the majority, your definition holds no more weight than that of any number of disagreeing Christian denominations. Thus the most failed prayer in history coming from Jesus himself:
John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, THAT ALL OF THEM MAY BE ONE, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE—I in them and you in me—SO THAT THEY MAY BE BROUGHT TO COMPLETE UNITY. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, but that you be PERFECTLY UNITED in mind and thought.
But your problem here, Scalia, is that when you make an accusation against me, you keep demonstrating that you are projecting your own foibles. You say I’m strawmanning Christians, while you have no problem strawman atheists. Here’s what you said above:
“The relevant question at this stage is whether you believe that you can disprove the existence of all gods” and “Indeed, when he was repeatedly told that he was misrepresenting the Christian position, he didn’t even bother to look it up!”
I’ve repeatedly pointed out that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods, something that can be easily verified by virtually every definition of an atheist available. Here are just the first definitions that come up from a simple google search if you’d bothered to look it up:
Wikipedia: Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Merriam-Webster The meaning of ATHEIST is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
Cambridge Dictionary: someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist
American Atheists: Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.
Britannica: Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs.
Merriam-Webster: The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.
So while SOME atheists certainly do claim NO gods exist (and the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this), the LACK of belief in gods is all that is required for someone to be an atheist. You seem to believe one is not an atheist unless they claim no gods exist, which is a straw man position not held by the majority of affirmed atheists.
Theist who claim gods exist are the ones who bear the burden of proof.
See? If I lied ANYWHERE there, I’ve provided you with the means to call me out, so even if I’m the most underhanded liar in the world, you’ll have me dead to rights! See how easy I’ve made it for you?
“And, yes, every time Derek misstates Jason’s arguments or another person’s posts, I will provide the proof of his dishonesty as a warning to others to just leave him alone with respect to the topic. He wants the satisfaction of “refuting” what Jason says without a response from the commentariat”
That works for me. As I said, I’m interested in the debate, and if you have to pretend to be talking to others instead of me to debate me, I’m fine with that. But don’t fool yourself that that’s not what you’re doing.
LikeLike
May 26, 2024 at 3:48 pm
And, true to form, Dumbo ignores the fact that I’ve provided the proof of my claims repeatedly. I don’t claim he lies; I show explicitly that he lies—and he knows it. And Dingbat typically displays his ignorance of Christianity when referencing the Christian position on goodness. He thinks that because there’s disagreement, there isn’t a position adopted by the significant majority of Christians, regardless denominational boundaries. You see? If he had done the principled thing and researched a matter before popping off about it, he wouldn’t be making such foolish claims as he does here.
Dumbo is a sad creature to likes to laugh at others without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 7:06 am
And once again you make claims that are clearly false. What is the matter with you? At least will admit to and correct my own misstatements when they come to my attention, whereas you continue refusing to even acknowledge your own demonstrably false claims when they’re called out. You even made YET ANOTHER false claim in your latest rant:
“He thinks that because there’s disagreement, there isn’t a position adopted by the significant majority of Christians, regardless denominational boundaries.”
What I actually said, Scalia, was “Good luck finding virtually ANY Christian denomination claim about Christianity that isn’t opposed by other denominations. There are literally THOUSANDS of denominations of Christianity out there, and ALL of them disagree—often violently—with other denominations. If you believe one of the versions of Christianity that has a different definition of Christian goodness than what I’ve listed, good for you—but the Bible does not come with a key to determine whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong.”
Did I say ANYTHING about whether there aren’t positions adopted by the significant majority of Christians there? Anything at all? Nope, I simply pointed out that there are SO MANY conflicting denominations, and the definition of goodness is one of them. And OF COURSE there are positions adopted even by the vast majority of Christians—like the evils of slavery (even though God endorses slavery in the Bible) and that God is good. But so what? Do you think Christian belief comes down to a popularity contest? There are STILL Christian denominations that disagree even on those widespread beliefs, and who are you to say they’re wrong? They claim YOU are wrong, and like you they can point to scripture to support their claims.
Instead of addressing what I ACTUALLY said, you made a straw man claim about my position, employed an argument from popularity, and even managed to slip in a no true Scotsman fallacy. Congratulations! You just committed not one, not two, but THREE fallacies in a single sentence. Bravo!
I really should stop engaging in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed, but it’s good for others to see who you really are:
Matthew 7:4-5 “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 10:53 pm
The astute reader will recall the indicators that Dumbo is lying. One of them is when he attempts to reframe a debate. And that’s exactly what he’s doing here.
Recall that years ago, he presented what he alleged was the Christian position on goodness without realizing that the views he presented are held by the significant minority of Christians. Now, if he had informed his readers/listeners of that fact, he would have been providing a service by looking at just one facet of Christianity. And since he focused on the minority position, you’d think that he’d eventually get around to the standard position. He didn’t do that, of course, because he didn’t have a sweet clue that there was another view. He based his presentations on personal anecdotal interactions with Christians. He was thus exhibiting a fundamental flaw—the failure to properly research a matter before commenting on it (the suppressed evidence fallacy or neglected aspect). This flaw isn’t limited to ethics. He commits the same error on other topics (e.g., Thomism). However, “flaw” is really too charitable. In his case, it’s more of a reckless disregard for the truth.
So, when he was informed by yours truly that his arguments are not germane to the position held by the significant majority of Christians across denominational lines, he never bothered to find out what that position is. Any honest person would endeavor to correct such an error, but Dingbat couldn’t do that. In order to do so, he’d have to admit that he was wrong to present the matter as the Christian position when it was, at best, a significant minority position (as if Jehovah’s Witnesses represent Christianity). He’d have to admit that he didn’t research the matter sufficiently before popping off about it. And since it’s his face that is paramount here (not the truth), that has to be protected at all costs. And you know how we know this? To this day Dingbat still doesn’t know what the standard Christian definition of goodness is! One would think after all this time, he’d at least make the effort to correct his idiocy, but since propaganda is more important to Dumbo than truth, why bother? This is typical of all liars. To relate things as they really are, he’d have to admit error. But after all the stupid posts he’s logged here, he’s got to keep the fairy tale running.
Dumbo is a pathetic creature who likes to laugh at others without realzing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
June 13, 2024 at 1:03 pm
And there you go again, Scalia. I caught you red-handed making a gross misstatement about what I said. And you had the opportunity to simply explain that you were mistaken, but instead, you doubled down—which means this wasn’t just an honest mistake on your part, but an outright LIE. Worse, you resorted to fallacies and ignored them when they were pointed out to you. That makes you both a liar and a hypocrite. THAT I find disgusting.
You are so desperate to avoid being made to look like a fool by this “stupid, misinformed” atheist that you’ve fully embraced the dishonesty you accuse others of committing. What a sad person you are….
And yes, of course I’m familiar with the definition of goodness embraced by most Christians—I’ve had variations of it thrown at me countless times not to know! Preacherteacher even referenced it in our debates, if you’ll recall. But I made it clear that any such definition is IRRELEVANT when I said “even if your particular definition happens to be in the majority, your definition holds no more weight than that of any number of disagreeing Christian denominations.”
To quote Mahatma Gandhi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Fortunately not all Christians are like you. Oh…but unlike you, they’re not “true” Christians, right? Your comment about the JWs makes that unjustified position clear.
Again, Christianity isn’t a popularity contest. It’s an interpretation contest that nobody can win because the Bible is ambiguous and contradictory when it comes to good and evil behavior, and it doesn’t come with a key or clarification notes to explain those problems. So what we’re left with is Christians attempting to put their own spin on what it means. You do that no less than anyone in any other, contradictory denomination does.
LikeLike
June 13, 2024 at 1:57 pm
And true to form, once Dumbo is exposed for reframing, he resorts to outright lying about it. He thinks that because I’m not toeing the line with his reframing, he’s exempt from his past statements. If he had addressed the standard definition of goodness, he’d have no problem linking to it, but he can’t because he hasn’t. And that doesn’t take away from the fact that he presented the extreme minority position as if it were the standard definition.
On top of that, he tries to get everybody to chase a red herring by claiming its ineffectiveness when that’s not the point. It is irrelevant entirely whether or not any theory of goodness works. Dingbat claimed that one version was THE version when he didn’t have a clue what the standard version was (obvious since claiming one version as THE version demonstrates ignorance of the real version). And when he was called on it, he never bothered to inform himself of what it is. Now, he claims that Preacherteacher defined it in their debate. How can he say that when he doesn’t know what the standard version is? Hint, Preacherteacher didn’t provide it either, but of course Dumbo didn’t know that and assumed otherwise because he’s an incompetent idiot. Because I happen to agree with Preacherteacher on some points doesn’t mean that I agree with him on every point.
Dumbo is so desperate to deflect, he tries to attack the consistency of the Bible when that is irrelevant as well. The point isn’t the efficacy of moral theory. The point is Dumbo’s lying about it. He revealed his incompetence when he presented a non-standard version of Christian goodness and doubled-down when informed otherwise. He failed to find out what the standard version is and ineptly attempted to deflect his incompetence by arguing red herrings. He did this in the past when he pretended to understand Thomism and immediately put his foot in his mouth when he tried to explain it. And the sad thing is, he would have garnered considerable respect had he only exhibited the epistemological humility that truth-seekers of all stripes exhibit when they make a mistake. They simply acknowledge the error and seek to more fully inform themselves. What Dumbo fails to realize is that everybody here knows this about him, so he’s forfeited his credibility. Had he been honest, folks would hear him with greater respect. His pretending to know things he’s ignorant of, and his lying about it only makes him look more pathetic.
Dingbat is an incompetent buffoon who likes to laugh at others without realizing he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
June 18, 2024 at 4:17 am
“Dumbo is so desperate to deflect”
LOL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Read your post again—the WHOLE THING is an attempt to deflect, Scalia. I’ve never known anyone guilty of so much projection before as you. Amazing….
You were caught red-handed mischaracterizing a clear statement I made, and then you doubled down on it when I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself. That has revealed for everyone to see that you are a liar and a hypocrite. What a joke.
Again, the purpose of this blog’s comments is to encourage discussion and debate theology, but you refuse to engage under the lame excuse of accusing ME of lying. That’s so rich coming from you!
Despite that, I’m not so thin-skinned as to resort to pearl-clutching the way you have, and I’m quite willing to dismiss your bellyaching and continue debating you on theology. But unless and until you are willing to grow up and act like an adult here, I’m done with you on this thread. I’ve no use for your hatred, lies, whining and childish name-calling. Come back when you’re able to get over yourself and argue theology intelligently.
LikeLike
June 18, 2024 at 1:55 pm
And on cue, Dumbo continues to deflect and lie. I never mischaracterized anything he said. And I don’t merely accuse him of being a liar; I have proven it:
Bye Bye Roe
Dingbat cannot follow his own argument (see Tempted to works righteousness), so it’s no wonder he continues to be unable to understand what’s going on here.
When Dingbat is shown an error of his, regardless the level of error, be it simple or significant, he ignores, denies, deflects and reframes. When that doesn’t work, he doubles down or outright lies about it. He pretends to know about subjects of which he’s ignorant (e.g., Thomism), and when called on it, he doesn’t have the integrity to admit his error, but instead deflects by attacking those who notice that the self-appointed emperor has no clothes.
Dumbo has a track record of dishonesty. And as he’s been told, this has been noticed by the regulars here. He may be a legend in his own mind, but he’s a joke to everybody but sycophants. He has zero credibility because it’s been shown that he will manipulate and twist anything to avoid admitting obvious factual and logical errors. I’ve debated him multiple times, and each time his backside has been handed to him. He’s so stupid, he continues his ineffectual attempt to debate me on thread topics when I’ve told him multiple times that he’s proven unworthy of honorable debate. And whether he likes it or not, when he tries to hijack threads to discredit Jason or others, I’ll remind everybody of his record of dishonesty.
Dingbat is a sad creature who likes to laugh at others without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
October 6, 2024 at 3:20 am
The very question is stupid. You lost the argument before you began. Nobody in their right mind asks the question “is there a god” because it is ridiculous to ask and brings no gain. Beyond atheism is where the question leads. Free your mind. There are more important things to ponder, more curiosities to seek and explore than fantasies of fears.
LikeLike
October 9, 2024 at 12:50 pm
Floridaleeman, you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. You only offer assertions and ridicule, not evidence and reason. There’s a simple reason for that: reason is on the side of theism, not atheism.
LikeLike
October 27, 2024 at 7:20 am
How is that possible? Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. If someone claims Bigfoot exists, is it more reasonable to believe he exists or to withhold belief?
Theists have been trying for millennia to provide credible evidence for their gods, without success. The best they’ve managed to do is come up with easily debunked arguments which primarily serve as comfort food for believers (how many people do you know who were convinced to believe in gods based on arguments?). They’re not convincing for anyone else because it’s easy to demonstrate why they’re fallacious.
Thus, reason leads to atheism, not theism. Even if you believe you have had some divine personal experience, it’s only evidence for you…but even that is not strong evidence, since we know people misinterpret, confuse, hallucinate and lie—even to themselves—all the time, and those naturalistic possibilities far more likely than the existence of the supernatural, much less gods (this is why reproducibility and falsifiability are the foundation of the scientific method).
If you disagree with me on this, please provide your VERY BEST evidence (or, failing that, argument) for the existence of gods. I’d love to know.
LikeLike
December 12, 2024 at 10:58 pm
love to see people using an “argument from etymology” to claim that the definitions arise from the derivations alone. Linguistic Philosophy is important. The concept preceded the words for both atheism and agnostic.
It’s remarkable to see people claim gnostic is the opposite of agnostic as well. As if agnostic wasn’t invented in the last 300 years and is well defined by the inventor who was articulating a specific concept of thinking accepting a proposition that God exists or denying such a proposition is true would both require more evidence than is available.
This change was indeed an intentional obfuscation but atheists who were seen as intellectually juvenile by agnostics and theists alike. So they attempted to muddy the water and make agnostic = everybody so they can have more agnostics claiming to be atheists.
This would render everybody on a spectrum of “atheist – theist”, with everyone by default being atheist (due to i their claimed vague and obscure definitions) and it makes everyone on the planet agnostic 😂
It’s always suspicious when people use marketing tactics to push ideas. And this is a clear example. Along with the philosophically ignorant 4 horsemen (well 3 I guess)
LikeLike
December 13, 2024 at 1:25 pm
You’ve made multiple mistakes there, Brandon. First, the prefix “a” literally means “without” or “lacking.” Since theism refers to belief in gods, atheism is a LACK of belief in gods. It is NOT a belief that there are no gods, although those who hold that position are a subset of atheists because they also LACK a belief in gods.
Second, you are aware that definitions change, right? There was a time less than a century ago when the term “computer” referred to a person who made calculations. Now the term refers to machines, not people. Language is FULL of such examples.
Similarly, 2000 years ago Romans considered Christians to be atheists, since they didn’t believe in the established Roman gods. So should we be referring to Christians as atheists? Or can you accept that the definition has evolved somewhat throughout history?
Third, atheism primarily concerns belief (or lack thereof), while agnosticism primarily concerns knowledge and epistemological limitations. Both challenge traditional religious assumptions, but through distinct philosophical mechanisms. It is not at all contradictory for one to be an agnostic theist (one who believes in gods but doesn’t claim to know they exist) or an agnostic atheist (one who doesn’t believe in gods but doesn’t claim to know they don’t exist). Does that sound like we’re defining “everyone on the planet agnostic”?
You’re arguing a straw man fallacy.
LikeLike