re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

[William]

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists can believe in ghosts et al, without believing in "GOD(s)" {SOURCE ARTICLE}.

However, when examining the source article what we find is that the study is done with individuals "Self Declaring to being atheists" and that "agnostic atheists" appear to be most affected by the "irrational thinking of the religious"
_________________________________________

re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Q: Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

My own position on the question, is Agnostic Neutral and therefore I do not have any beliefs re such things as ghosts and spirits, astrology, reincarnation, or think that some people have magical powers, that the article says atheist's can and do have belief in.

[William]

P1: Any argument or position based upon agnosticism is an illogical fallacious argument from ignorance ... by definition.

So it is not neutral or not not neutral.... it is ignorance ... by definition.

Arguments or stances based upon ignorance are... illogical and fallacious.

People who claim ignorance ... i.e. agnosticism ... should just shut up and not make any opinion or stance or argument about what they claim agnosticism of... otherwise they are committing illogical fallacies.


P2: Those are boldly silly assertions. What does an agnostic have to be ignorant of?

William: Is P1 correct about the position of agnosticism?

OAIC: No, P1's assertion about agnosticism is incorrect. Agnosticism is not inherently illogical or fallacious. It is simply a position that one does not have enough evidence or knowledge to make a definite claim about the existence or non-existence of a particular deity, supernatural being, or phenomenon. An agnostic individual can still make logical, evidence-based arguments about related issues without committing fallacies.

William: Has P1 committed a fallacy?

OAIC: Yes, P1 has committed the fallacy of overgeneralization. P1 has made a sweeping generalization about the entire concept of agnosticism, claiming that it is inherently illogical and fallacious, which is not accurate. Additionally, P1 has made a straw man argument by implying that agnostics claim to have complete ignorance on a subject, which is not the definition of agnosticism. The assertion that people who claim ignorance (agnosticism) should not make any opinion or stance is also incorrect, as agnosticism allows for the possibility of holding a belief or making a stance, even if it is not a definite one.

[neverknewyou]

While I appreciate your humour I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists.

That would be the thing to do as secret handshakes don't reveal anything, other than secretiveness...

I used to break it all down but not anymore. How much can, or many ways, can a person not believe? I don't define god either, i leave that for the theist to waste their time on.

[Difflugia]

While I appreciate your humour I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists.

The problem is your assertion that babies or rocks being definitionally atheist is silly. That what you want atheism to mean something other than the definition isn't a problem with the definition.

[William]

The problem is your assertion that babies or rocks being definitionally atheist is silly.

Are you arguing that this isn't a silly notion? If so, I am eager to hear why you think that this is the case.

Meanwhile, I am satisfied that - as an Agnostic - my treating Agnosticism as a separate and distinct position from atheism [as atheism is currently defined] and also treating Antitheism as its own unique position, for the same reason, is the best approach to take.

If and when my Agnostic based expressions cause confusion to any readers, re I might not sound like I am an atheist at all - I can direct them to post #30 of this thread, so it is all good in its own way.

I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that.

I do not.

[Difflugia]

Are you arguing that this isn't a silly notion?

Yes.

If so, I am eager to hear why you think that this is the case.

"Doesn't believe in gods" applies to babies and rocks the same way that tomatoes are berries, birds are dinosaurs, a hot dog is a sandwich, and ice is a rock. Many definitions apply in ways that aren't immediately obvious, but that doesn't make them useless or wrong. Unless you can justify that "unexpected by William" is the same as "silly," I don't think I owe you any more counterargument than that.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #20]

I did not argue that ideals good or bad should be ruled out.

I argue that simply lacking belief in gods, is not an ideal.

Which is to say, arguing WHY one SHOULD lack belief in gods, is done so FROM a position OTHER THAN atheism.. any position that is not strictly a theist one, is able to argue WHY a lack in the belief in gods is ideal, but those answers still vary from position to position.

Point being, re this thread topic - Atheism in principle [strictly speaking] is NOT a position one can argue those WHY answers, from.

This started because Diogenes said this:

"Atheism's only role [in the formation of morality] is to prevent irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

...Which you disagreed with on the basis of atheism not counting as an ideal. Atheism doesn't count as an ideal, so be it, but then it's still possible for something that is not an ideal to have a role in the formation of morality by preventing beliefs about morality from being enforced in a particular unjustified way. (Which I agree that it should, but in practice it doesn't.)

Atheism's role in the formation of morality is wholly negative, meaning it can never give a positive justification of some moral rule. It can never "tell us why." However, it can rule out some justifications which arguably is just as important, especially if people are going around killing others off and saying, "because God said" and leaving people with little other reason to disagree.

[Clownboat]

Why you would consider YHVH would be a god?

I suppose I would consider the God of the Hebrews to be a God if it were to have created the universe.

We both know that the claim from the Hebrews is that YVHV created the universe.

Then you should not be surprised that I would believe such a thing if it were shown to be true. Yet you asked anyway? This is why I keep asking if you even have a point.

You consider this to be enough to describe a "god" as being "something which purposefully created this universe?"

No silly. If any claimed god concept is shown to be true, I would consider it to be a God. Wouldn't you?
Do you not remember what you asked of me?: "Why you would consider YHVH would be a god?"
Clownboat would consider a god to be a God if it were shown to be a God. For example, show that the Hebrew god concept is real and I would believe it to be a God.

If so, then this gives the reader insight on what you are meaning when you use the term "God"

The record shows that you are the only one sowing confusion about the gods.
When I use the term god, YHVH, God or god concepts, I'm clear in my meanings.

For the sake of any further argument we might have here, I am happy to go along with that premise [YHVH can be considered a God] if it helps our conversation move forward.

Reders, let the record show that William is ok with the premise that the God concept of the Hebrews can be considered to be a God. I acknowledge that YHVH is the claimed God of the Hebrews already and have no issue with this fact. Show the claim to be true and I'll even accept it.

We can then tie that idea into the OP question, and see how that develops.

I beg you to make this happen.

Otherwise, we can consider the subject of me referring to YHVH in my posts on this site, to being besides the point to the OP subject and question.

Please clarify. When you use the word YHVH above, do you mean god concepts in general, or just the Hebrew God?

One last try...
William, if I were to use the word Allah when I sincerly just mean god concepts in general, do you think it would cause confusion? What if I wanted to ask you about Allah specifically? How would I do that so you could understand? Should I just expect you to know when I'm being generic about the gods compared to when I'm talking about a specific one even though I use the same word to describe both?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #35]

Can you explain to the reader why it is important that a rock should ever be seen to be an atheist?

[Difflugia]

Can you explain to the reader why it is important that a rock should ever be seen to be an atheist?

It's the same reason that the sum of two and two is seen to be four; the alternative is that you're wrong.

[Clownboat]

While I appreciate your humour I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists.

Why would a thinking person actually wonder if a rock believes in any of the available god concepts? You bring this up as if we should take it seriously when clearly it would be idiotic thinking. Why change the name of a word over idiotic thinking? Why not just ignore such a person and feel sorry for them for wondering if a rock is an atheists?
Also, babies are not born believing in a god concept. They must be taught. Therefore, we are all born atheists and some of us end up subscribing to one of the available god concepts. Again, no reason to change the meaning of the word as 'babies are atheists' is easy to understand and is accurate.

Your attempted justification for why we should change the name of the word seems to fail. Perhaps you left something out?