The great atheist questionnaire....

[touchingcloth]

No you can not be an agnostic atheist. To try to argue for this nonsense is to take a baseball bat to the English language. I've explained this so many times before and yet it still does not get through.

Yes, you can be. How is it taking a baseball bat to the language? I think you have probably misunderstood what agnosticism is.

But why will you not just answer the simple question, TC? You could have done it by now...[/quote]
Again, I think I addressed this perfectly clearly in my response to derrick09.

I'll preface this by saying ... I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods

[DannyM]

Science has proven that time began to exist when the universe began to exist.

Science has "proven" no such thing. Physicists have developed math models of our universe which begin at particular points (most famously the singularity of the big bang), but this ought not be confused with a metaphysical rejection of hypothetical wider-ranging models.

Philosophically we can only really posit 'something' or 'nothing' as the cause of our universe coming into existence.

This of course assumes that, first, we can talk about causation outside the context of space and time, and second, that our universe indeed had a cause. I for one hold neither such assumption.

It seems to me that the atheist needs to explain himself if he truly believes that there is nothing behind our existence;

Most atheists (in my experience) do not reify nothingness in the way you have described, which is agreeably incoherent.

Again, there is nothing philosophically wrong with positing a creator as the first uncaused cause in the creation of the universe.

Sure there is: lack of warrant.

Hawking, Penrose and other astrophysicists held to the big bang model. I'll stick with the experts if it's all the same to you. The rest is just nonsense. Feel free to explain why anything and not nothing...Show me, in a coherent manner, of course, how something could logically arise from nothing...

[DannyM]

No you can not be an agnostic atheist. To try to argue for this nonsense is to take a baseball bat to the English language. I've explained this so many times before and yet it still does not get through.

Yes, you can be. How is it taking a baseball bat to the language? I think you have probably misunderstood what agnosticism is.

But why will you not just answer the simple question, TC? You could have done it by now...

Again, I think I addressed this perfectly clearly in my response to derrick09.

I'll preface this by saying ... I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods

[/quote]

See my response to Hatsoff for your answer, TC. Look, if you wish to hold to this nonsense then fine, but it *is* nonsense. If you merely lack belief then you are agnostic; tell me how you differ from the agnostic here? Lacking believe is passive - atheism is the belief that there are no god/s. Agnostics simply lack belief and refuse to adjudicate either way; atheists - true atheists - BELIEVE there are no god/s. I am not misunderstanding anything, TC, but you have clearly been suckered in to this perversion of the language.

[touchingcloth]

See my response to Hatsoff for your answer, TC. Look, if you wish to hold to this nonsense then fine, but it *is* nonsense. If you merely lack belief then you are agnostic; tell me how you differ from the agnostic here? Lacking believe is passive - atheism is the belief that there are no god/s. Agnostics simply lack belief and refuse to adjudicate either way; atheists - true atheists - BELIEVE there are no god/s. I am not misunderstanding anything, TC, but you have clearly been suckered in to this perversion of the language.

Agnosticism is a word that applies to any claim, not just those claims about gods. Agnosticism is a scale that defines whether or not you believe something to be knowable (strongly agnostic = no one can ever know if this claim is true or not, weakly agnostic = we do not know for certain if any gods exist, but it is something that in principle we could know). The same scale would apply to, for example, claims that aliens exist. Personally on the agnostic scale I'd lean towards weak agnosticism or even Ignosticism...

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any gods. That can be a positive/active belief (I believe that there are no gods) or an apathetic/passive belief (I don't believe in any god).

Again, where you sit on the agnostic scale is a separate matter to where you sit on the theism-atheism scale.

ETA - Your definition of agnosticism as "you merely lack belief" is incorrect.

[DannyM]

See my response to Hatsoff for your answer, TC. Look, if you wish to hold to this nonsense then fine, but it *is* nonsense. If you merely lack belief then you are agnostic; tell me how you differ from the agnostic here? Lacking believe is passive - atheism is the belief that there are no god/s. Agnostics simply lack belief and refuse to adjudicate either way; atheists - true atheists - BELIEVE there are no god/s. I am not misunderstanding anything, TC, but you have clearly been suckered in to this perversion of the language.

Agnosticism is a word that applies to any claim, not just those claims about gods. Agnosticism is a scale that defines whether or not you believe something to be knowable (strongly agnostic = no one can ever know if this claim is true or not, weakly agnostic = we do not know for certain if any gods exist, but it is something that in principle we could know). The same scale would apply to, for example, claims that aliens exist. Personally on the agnostic scale I'd lean towards weak agnosticism or even Ignosticism...

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any gods. That can be a positive/active belief (I believe that there are no gods) or an apathetic/passive belief (I don't believe in any god).

Again, where you sit on the agnostic scale is a separate matter to where you sit on the theism-atheism scale.

ETA - Your definition of agnosticism as "you merely lack belief" is incorrect.

I don't mind you mucking about with your talk of strong/weak positions within a belief because there is some merit in this. But I can not stand idle while you take a sub-machine gun to your own mother tongue. Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way of knowing if god/s exist or do not exist. The only belief in agnosticism is that there is no way to come to a positive belief based on the available evidence. The agnostic is unwilling to adjudicate based on current evidence/knowledge being insufficient. This is, at its very core, a lack of belief either way.

Atheism is the belief in no god or gods. It is a positive *belief*. The atheist has made up his mind and taken his position. There is no lack of belief in the sense that the agnostic lacks belief; the atheist positively *believes* that there are no god/gods. Now, you can *not* marry agnosticism to atheism. You can *not* be undecided while at the same time being decided; you can not, at the very exact time, remain passive while being positive on this issue. It is a pure maltreatmnent of the English language to try to do this. I think Basil would declare you are from Spain, TC.

[touchingcloth]

To think in shades of grey isn't to butcher the language. There's a clear difference between people who believe that we don't have any way of knowing whether gods exist and that we will never have any way of knowing, and people who believe that we don't have any way of knowing but that we could do one day.

Agnosticism isn't a state of decided vs undecided, it's a statement about whether or not you believe a question can be answered.

To use your own definition of "Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way of knowing if god/s exist or do not exist", it would be perfectly possible for someone to say that "I believe there is no way of knowing if god/s exist - yet I believe in a god" or to say "I believe there is no way of knowing if god/s exist - yet I do not believe in a god". You will find people who subscribe to both those statements, and they are your agnostic theists and your agnostic atheists.

[DannyM]

To think in shades of grey isn't to butcher the language. There's a clear difference between people who believe that we don't have any way of knowing whether gods exist and that we will never have any way of knowing, and people who believe that we don't have any way of knowing but that we could do one day.

Agnosticism isn't a state of decided vs undecided, it's a statement about whether or not you believe a question can be answered.

To use your own definition of "Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way of knowing if god/s exist or do not exist", it would be perfectly possible for someone to say that "I believe there is no way of knowing if god/s exist - yet I believe in a god" or to say "I believe there is no way of knowing if god/s exist - yet I do not believe in a god". You will find people who subscribe to both those statements, and they are your agnostic theists and your agnostic atheists.

TC, I'm going out for a little afternoon shuffle on the dance floor, but I'll be back later on yeah? If you persist with your double-speak I might just set Basil on you, sir. Remember, when you dance and shake it a little, things don't seem so bad.

[touchingcloth]

There's no doublespeak here. Maybe in your mind it's becoming doublespeak because you've wrongly defined atheism and agnosticism and declared them to be mutually exclusive, which isn't the case.

ETA - ...just a quick shufty over to wiki summarises the kind of things I've been getting at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism they've got a definition of the range of atheism, strong vs weak, implicit, vs explicit
& http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticis ... gnosticism where they've got strong vs weak agnosticism, agnostic theism and atheism...

[DannyM]

I believe there is no way of knowing if god/s exist - yet I do not believe in a god". You will find people who subscribe to both those statements, and they are your agnostic theists and your agnostic atheists.

You've just blown it, TC. I too don't really *know*. I feel I know, I'm convinced that God exists, but I don't really *know*. You are using this obvious factor to call yourself an agnostic atheist. Like I said, this is pure maltreatment of the language. Talking of butchery, I'll have half a pound of your pork sausages please guv...

[touchingcloth]

I believe there is no way of knowing if god/s exist - yet I do not believe in a god". You will find people who subscribe to both those statements, and they are your agnostic theists and your agnostic atheists.

You've just blown it, TC. I too don't really *know*. I feel I know, I'm convinced that God exists, but I don't really *know*. You are using this obvious factor to call yourself an agnostic atheist. Like I said, this is pure maltreatment of the language. Talking of butchery, I'll have half a pound of your pork sausages please guv...

Well I'll take a leaf from your book then and, as you deferred to Hawking and Penrose, I'll defer to the philosophers and etymologists and such who do see the distinction between the scales of theism and gnosticism.

You say you don't really know f god exists...but presumably you are open to the idea that you or others may at some point be able to truly know if god exists? So you're weakly agnostic to the question of whether we can know if god exists, but your faith in god makes you a theist.

So, ladies and gents, please welcome to the room DannyM the Agnostic Theist!

[hatsoff]

Here we go with asserted claims with no rational basis.

I was asking questions, not asserting claims. But it so happens that I do regard God's existence as highly unlikely.

How "unlikely" is God's existence? On what do you base such a claim? Can you show me an empirical model from which you derive this claim?

Likelihood is, among other things, a measure of expectation. We can gauge our own expectation and assign a value we deem appropriate. No "empirical model" is required for us to do so.

[hatsoff]

I've seen the link before and it is utter nonsense. Sorry. I can show you Oxford, which correctly defines atheism and correctly defines agnosticism. From these definitions - the correct definitions - it is impossible, in the perimeters of the English language, and thus our whole mother tongue, to be an agnostic atheist.

Definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." They are useful or not useful, appropriate or inappropriate, attractive or unattractive, but not "correct" or "incorrect."

It is quite true that "atheist" and "agnostic" both carry the definitions you ascribe to them---in particular contexts, of course. But they are by no means limited to those definitions.

I doubt you will be swayed by anything I say here, though, so, in order to verify it, I suggest you consult professional resources including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Antony Flew's God, Freedom and Immortality (esp. chap. 2).

[hatsoff]

Hawking, Penrose and other astrophysicists held to the big bang model. I'll stick with the experts if it's all the same to you.

If you really can do that, it would be fantastic. As of now you are extending considerably beyond what the scientific community would assert.

The rest is just nonsense. Feel free to explain why anything and not nothing...Show me, in a coherent manner, of course, how something could logically arise from nothing...

Apparently you didn't read my post very carefully, for in it I remarked that such a suggestion is "agreeably incoherent."

[derrick09]

Say Touchingcloth, do you want to give my questionnaire a go? Thanks in advance.

[DannyM]

is pure maltreatment of the language. Talking of butchery, I'll have half a pound of your pork sausages please guv...

Well I'll take a leaf from your book then and, as you deferred to Hawking and Penrose, I'll defer to the philosophers and etymologists and such who do see the distinction between the scales of theism and gnosticism.

You say you don't really know f god exists...but presumably you are open to the idea that you or others may at some point be able to truly know if god exists? So you're weakly agnostic to the question of whether we can know if god exists, but your faith in god makes you a theist.

So, ladies and gents, please welcome to the room DannyM the Agnostic Theist![/quote]

All right all right calm down mate, you're getting a wee bit carried away with yourself. Everyone is agnostic in the sense they do not really know; I mean *really* know. I cannot show you that God exists. What you are doing is twisting the English language in a manner which should constitute a type of grammatical treason. I am a theist Full Stop; I believe that God exists. There is nothing agnostic in this. I know that God exists, I feel it and experience it. I am sure, certain that God exists. But, when it comes right down to the bare bones, I do not really know 100 per cent. All my experiences could be an allusion , for example. There is a chance that I am wrong. So, again, you are just taking a great big calving knife to our Post-Norman Mother tongue. For shame, TC.