Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 6:35 pm
You clearly have your own special nomenclature. And that's allowed, if you stipulate as to what your definition is, precisely.
No, these are not my own special definitions or nomenclature. There are a couple of kinds of atheists - what the terms means to them and in common usage. And a couple ways of defining agnosticism. In common usage by people not interested in philosophy agnosticism tends to mean they don't know. In philosophy it has the main other meaning I mentioned and this can be seen in the link I included.
Likewise, I'll happily stipulate what I mean. Whenver I write "Atheist," I mean somebody who says, "No gods," or any variety o if that. Whenever I say "agnostic," I mean somebody who says, "There may or may not be a God," regardless of the probability estimate they assign to their uncertainty.
Yes, that is what you mean.
So it's very simple: I prefer to go with the analytical meaning of the words. "A-theism" is "no-God" ism, and "agnosticism" is "I don't know for sure" ism.
You can count on that being how I'll speak going forward, so we can't misunderstand one another.
I understood that from before we started communicating, since I read your post. I was answering including the meanings that other, significantly large groups of people mean and intend.
I've heard some of them call this "Apatheism." But it's a pointless declaration, since it only means, "I don't wanna think about it."
More mindreading.
No. It's what they say they think. Or rather, that they don't think.
It was mindreading in context. I was talking about the group as a whole. Then you refer to a subgroup as if their psychology is relevent to the whole.
No, it's very ordinary.
It's like saying, "I don't like vanilla ice cream." Such a claim has zero implications
for anybody but the person stating it. 
Maybe you DO lkike vanilla ice cream. The speaker isn't even implying you can't. So if all one says is, "I don't believe in God," the answer is, "Gee...too bad for you." But if he means to add, "...and you shouldn't, either," then he owes reasons: and Atheism lacks sufficient means to do that.
First of all it doesn't matter in the context of this discussion if it has implications for others.
It matters very much to Dawkins et al. They are very much wanting to convince everybody that God is a "delusion," and hence that no rational person should believe in God.
Dawkins isn't in the discussion.
I have been answering your orginal question. It's not relevant to that.
If their disbelief has no implications for others, then they're out of luck on that.
Another idiotic statement. Sure, if they really need or want other people to change their minds suddenly because lack a belief, THEN they might be out of luck. They are weak, they are out of luck. What's next? Some other meaningless negative something or other they must have.
So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?
If you are using the term to mean you lack a belief, sure.
l
How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here. [/quote]I have answered that question[/quote]
Not really. Your answers have been equivocal.
Nope.
But if you want to stipulate your own definitions now, go ahead. It will make things confusing for any other readers, but you can do that.
[/quote]
Now you've got the point!
What point did that indicate I got?[/quote]
You got Dawkins's game.
No. I simply asked for you to give me someone who believes those two things.
At least, if you don't understand it now, you should.
I have understood how idiotic those two assertions are for many decades.
Dawkins (for example) wants to say BOTH "God is a delusion," AND "I'm only a 'firm agnostic' about God." Those are mutually contradictory claims. And I think he's smart enough to realize they are...but he still has to make both, because the former is non-evidentiary and vulnerable, and the latter is weak and devoid of implication for others.
I asked for someone here.
Oh "here," as in on the PN forum?
Yeah, not here on earth. As I said...
So please put me give me the name of someone here or on another forum who makes those two assertions.
But you don't read well it seems or care to.
It would be the equivalent of saying 'There are no Arabs' but I am not making a claim that is relevant to anyone else's belief.
Wait: are you saying they are saying "There is no God," like "There are no Arabs"?
Are you drawin that parallel?
But if you're saying that, you're agreeing with my definition of Atheism. You've just conceded it.
No. I am talking about someone asserting those two things that you say many people assert.
However, it does not matter whether or not they IMAGINE it has any relevancy to anybody else: it just doesn't, logically. My personal preferences, or yours, are not obligatory for anybody else. If I don't like vanilla, it never implies you can't.
Yeah, which doesn't make it weak or mean someone is out of luck.
Sure it does. It's weak in that it ought not to convince anybody else of anything at all.
It's not an argument. It is the definition that many people use. They are saying what they mean by that term. Saying what someone means by a term is not weak or strong. Yes, if someone says I don't believe in God and my lack of belief should convince you, that would be a weak argument. I'd ask you to show me someone making that argument but God knows how many posts, diversions and bs I'd have to go through to find that.
Yet to convince others is exactly what Dawkins et al. are trying to do. They want people to belief faith is a "delusion."
Well, duh.
So they're failures, logically speaking. Their arguments lack gravity or evidence. Nobody needs to take them seriously at all.
Yeah, but they don't make the argument that their lack of belief should convince us. It's a strawman.
As one theist to another. You are an embarrassment. And I do notice the things you don't respond to. For example when I said you were psychologizing. YOu said you weren't and I pointed out the obvious psychologizing....silence from you. A lack of integrity.
Your responses slide all over the place, you don't read well and you either lie or lack a basic competence to participate here. I'll ignore you from here on out.
