William wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:57 pm
As I read one atheists write on the subject of the difference between being agnostic and being atheist;
If you define atheism as not having a belief that there is a God, then agnosticism is a subset of atheism.
If you define atheism as having a belief that there is not a God, then agnosticism opposes that
.
It is interesting how Atheists define things, and it should not be surprising to look for and to find evidence of conformation bias within those definitions.
Let anyone try to stop you looking for it
.
Such definitions in themselves are, at worst, products of opinion rather than of science. As such, they most likely require honest examination and tweaking.
No. They are the product of logic, depending on the definitions, since agnosticism is (correctly) not knowing whether there is a god or not, any atheistic claim to know that a god does not exist would be logically untenable - which is the argument you make. So atheism would inevitably have to adopt a non belief position rather than a total denial, whether atheists want it or not. You are trying to force on atheism an illogical position that it cannot actually hold.
If you define atheism as not having a belief that there is a God, you already have problems, because the definition itself is untruthful, even that it appears at first glance to being true [and therefore, reasonable.]
I found your confirmation bias - right there. You note the 'non -belief' claim, you admit that it 'seems' reasonable but you say that atheists are lying about what they believe. They Say they only have non belief, because it is logical, but atheists Really (you can read their minds) hold a total denial position, because that enables you to say it's illogical. But as I say, if so, atheism is forced to the logical non -belief position, which is logically sound, even if every atheist were to hold positive denial -beliefs. Which I only ever saw one hold, and he was corrected right away.
The statement allows for Agnosticism to be 'owned' by atheism as a 'subset' and has lead many to declare that Agnosticism is 'weak Atheism'.
Not if you use agnosticism correctly. But I get that you mean that if atheism knew for sure there was no god, then 'not being sure - agnosticism' (as a belief -position) would arguably be 'owned' by atheism. Just as not being sure about evolution is 'owned' by atheism because we know the validity of the evidence for it and they apparently don't.
Another common declaration from atheists is that because they 'lack belief in god(s)', this means that all human beings are born atheists because all human babies also 'lack belief in gods'.
This declaration enables atheists to hijack the position of Agnosticism and force it into being a subset of Atheism, rather than being a position on its own, separated from the positions of Atheism and Theism alike.
I agree. They are. Of course they are not atheists - not unless they can think about it, but like anything that cannot think about the god -question (and thus cannot accept it) they are technically non -believers. This includes, babies, squirrels, rocks, socks and clocks.
This false news perpetrated by atheists has generally been accepted by an unsuspecting audience, even to the point where many Agnostics accept the position is indeed a sub-set of the atheist side...giving the position of Atheism and undeserved sheen in the 'top-spot' of default position of
every new born entity over the face of the planet. "We all start out as Atheists and wander from that by becoming Theists."
I call foul.
You are wrong. Your argument is false, untenable (fails automatically), biased, and does you and your religion no credit
If you truthfully define Atheism as a position for folk who have developed a willful belief that there is no God, then Agnosticism is not only a position in its own right, but the default position of every new born entity over the face of the planet.
Since we don't and it is, that is the bias confirmation that you spoke of, and the rest of your argument fails.
The battle is for that position, and the only ones who hold that position, are Agnostics who understand their position clearly, rather than through the filtered screens of atheist opinions and misinformation.
Since we are all agnostics (as nobody knows for sure - not even theists, who think they do) the battle is indeed one for who has the best case on evidence and logic. I can tell you now - atheism does.
Having said as much, I am aware that the label "Agnosticism" may also be misinformation and the default position may require a more truthful heading.
This is due to the position of Gnosticism, from where Agnosticism got its name.
Point being, wherever this sleight of hand originated, it is high time it was pinned to the table and dissected for the sake of clarity and the truthfulness clarity provides us all with.
That would be the reasonable thing to do.
Dissection done. The mistake (I won't call it sleight of hand) is the common mistake of confusing 'not knowing' (agnosticism) as the default position on knowledge, with the sliding scale of evidence and the interpretation of it that decides us whether we
believe or not, which is what defines theists or atheists with little wiggle room between even though there is a whole sliding -scale on how sure we are about the evidence.
P.s looking at the diagram, it seems to make another slip - equating strong and weak atheism (which really means the degree of confidence about it) with apatheism (not believing and not caring much) with anti -theism, which is not the degree of atheism but whether to do something about it. They are not the same things, or so I would argue.
