Quote from axeman:
You continue to attack this straw-man.
You simply don't understand what atheism and agnosticism IS.
No, you simply have a definition of atheism and agnosticism I don't subscribe to.
Atheism/Theism deal in the realm of BELIEF.
Agnosticism/gnosticism deal in the realm of KNOWLEDGE.
Agnosticism and gnosticism have different beliefs as to what constitutes knowledge of God. The Gnostics believed that spiritual internal knowledge revealed God, and the agnostics believed that only empirical knowledge would reveal God.
As such, their respective belief systems are rooted in opinion of what knowledge should be, not in fact of what knowledge of God would be, or what what God would require to know Him.
Belief is still at the heart of their respective systems.
An atheist does not BELIEVE there is a god.
An agnostic does not KNOW there is a god.
An agnostic clearly defines what would constitute knowledge sufficient to know God, yet that is only their belief system. It is baseless for them to have no knowledge of God, yet claim that only a certain means of knowing God is correct. Even saying God is unknowable implies that they have knowledge of God sufficient to come to that conclusion.
They simply believe they don't know. In the same way that people can in fact know the truth, but be in a conscious state of denial of that truth.
THAT is the crucial difference.
The difference is not crucial, as belief underlies both their practices and doctrines.
Since we are all born NOT believing in god, we are
by definition ATHEISTS.
How do you know that we are not in fact born believing in God, trusting in God? Perhaps that is the ground state, and it only the training to trust the intellect over the heart that results in not believing in God.
Not believing in God suggests a choice of believing or not believing. Children may be born without the capacity of belief until a certain developmental stage, but that doesn't make them an atheist, as not having the capacity to believe in God is not the same as atheism.
By your definition, a plant is an atheist, as plants are do not have the capacity of belief, therefore don't believe in God.
Ask any reasonable person if a plant is an atheist.
The concept of atheism suggests a choice of what to believe or not believe.
Your definition is therefore incorrect and incomplete, thus showing your ignorance of your own belief system.
This fits the definition of ATHEISM perfectly. If you are born with NO belief system, then your belief system does NOT
contain god and you are THEREFORE AN ATHEIST.
Non sequitur. If a person is born with no belief system, then there is no belief system that follows which does not contain God. Something that does not exist can neither contain nor not contain anything. It is only when a belief system can exist that a belief system could hold no belief in God. No belief system, no ability to have beliefs. In the same way the non programmable ROM has no belief system, only programming that is fixed and does not change.
The following article explains this difference nicely,
and precisely why you are wrong.
Atheism is NOT a belief system. It is the LACK of theistic belief.
Lack of theistic belief is rooted in belief systems as to what would constitute knowledge and/or belief in God.
If a genuine atheist did exist, they would have no opinion on whether or not God exists, they would simply have no beliefs or concepts at all concerning God. They would respond in the same manner to the word God that they would to a man who speaks a foreign tongue they have no understanding of. They would hear sounds, but have no understanding of what was said, and could have no basis to form an opinion on what the words meant.
The difference between atheism and agnosticism is often the subject of much debate. Indeed, many people are confused about the difference between the two. Hopefully Iâll be able to give a clear understanding about the relationship and difference between these two words, and heighten the overall awareness of the reader.
Theism and atheism are dealing in the realm of belief. They pertain to what we do or do not believe. Agnosticism and gnosticism are dealing with knowledge, i.e., knowing or not knowing.
The author has an opinion of what knowing and not knowing are, thus Agnosticism has it basis in a belief system of what constitutes knowledge.
The gnostic atheist (AKA strong atheist) knows there are no gods at all. This knowledge is usually obtained due to some perceived logical incompatibility with the existence of a god and reality. An agnostic atheist (AKA weak atheist) is an atheist who maintains a lack of belief in a god--and sometimes a belief that no gods exist--while having no knowledge that gods do not exist, due to insufficient evidence or some other reason.
Here the author displays their belief system. The author states that "an agnostic atheist maintains a lack of belief in God." How can anyone maintain a lack of belief when they already have a concept of something? You cannot maintain something that does not exist. Maintaining a lack of belief in God is a belief in itself.
The very fact that the word God is understood, unlike the word sueigyyuyreimmmstersh which is not understood, means that belief is alive, as the conceptual mind has formed an idea of what the word God means. Once a concept is understood by the mind, a belief as to truth or falsity of that concept naturally and immediately follow. That is the nature of the human mind, to have opinions, to place and understand all concepts in relation to previously understood and accepted concepts. We build on what we know, we know what is false via what we accept as true, etc.
The author goes on: "and sometimes a belief that no gods exist"
Precisely, that is their belief system.
The author concludes:
"--while having no knowledge that gods do not exist, due to insufficient evidence or some other reason."
If an atheist claims "due to insufficient evidence or other reason" God does not exist, this implies that they have a pre-existing idea and belief system as to what would constitute sufficient evidence to believe in or know God. To form that statement, they would first have to have a concept of God, and a criteria for evaluation of evidence against their concept and belief of what God is.
The atheist/agnostic have a belief system as to what constitutes evidence and knowledge of God. Yet they can provide no proof that their criteria of evidence would be the right criteria of evidence. Only opinion of what they believe God is, how their criteria of God has not been satisfied.
If anyone seriously thinks about this, thinks deeply, they can see that the entire argument of the atheist/agnostic is completely circular in nature, baseless, without objective or logical foundation.
Which comes first, a concept of God, or non belief in God on the basis of that concept?
The author is quite confused in my opinion.
[/B]
)