I don't know how many youtube videos I've seen with theist saying something like atheist don't believe in God, yet they claim to be agnostic which don't know if there is a God. What Hippocrates! Hehehe! If they are really sophisticated they throw in Dawkins belief scale. Dawkins belief scale is 1-7, 1 being complete belief and 7 No belief. Dawkins put himself at a 6! He admitted there was a God! Hehehe!
An atheist can not by definition be agnostic.
An atheist must by definition be agnostic.
Both of the above statements are true. The irony here is that they in no way conflict. One is a statement of belief the other is a statement concerning philosophy and logic. Theist and atheist often don't have the background to make the distinction between the two. Few theist can make the distinction at all, of those who can they simply choose to be misleading.
First let me clarify what I mean by atheist...I will steal Matt Dillahuntys definitions fair and square.
1) I do not believe in God.
This one I personally do not like. I do not like, prescribe to or endorse terrorism at all. I do not believe in it. Yet it exist.
2) I do not believe there is a God.
This is a knowledge statement. With everything I know and understand,in all my life's experience I can not be compelled to believe there is a God. Hence Compelledunbeliever. Note I am not making a claim to know anything I do not know. This is why the term agnostic has become so problematic.
So now let's define agnostic. I will go by my paraphrased most common, understood definition.
1) Agnostic- one who does not know if there is a God or does not know what God may be.
By this definition if one does not believe there is a God they could not possibly be agnostic.
2) agnostic- honestly I can not put this in the form of a definition so I will explain it. If the definition of God as proffered by theist is something that can not be perceived, understood, or comprehended by man, then one can not by definition state that there is or is not a God. If an atheist therefore concedes that by this definition he can not claim to know what he can not know then, he can not claim to "know" there is no God. Therefore the atheist is by definition agnostic.
What is very often overlooked is that if this is the definition of God theist by the same logic can not assert "their is a God" this is why Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty often say that theist are claiming to "know" what they do not know.
Fun time with compelled!!!!
I like to use satire to show how ridiculous some things are. I really don't like potty humor but I find it sometimes necessary to make a point.
Let's say a unicorn theist insist there is a magical unicorn living in my butt. He insists that I can't conceive, comprehend, or due to its unicorn magic "know" that it is there.(He has already made the logical fallacy of claiming to "know" what he can not by definition know) I I'm 100 percent certain with all of my knowledge and experience that there is no unicorn living in my butt. I am a butt unicorn atheist. Yet I have not claimed to "know" anything I do not know. I simply do not believe in butt unicorns.
I am not a butt unicorn agnostic. I do not wonder if there really is a butt unicorn. I do not wonder if I just don't know what kind of butt unicorn it might be. I write it off as ridiculous.
I however must concede that if by definition I can not know the unicorn is living in my butt, I can not claim that I "know" it is not living in my butt. By this definition, by acknowledging philosophy and logic, I am a butt unicorn agnostic.
The important thing to bare in mind here is just because I have conceded that logic says there could be a magical unicorn living in my butt does not in any way infer that it might be. It is not probable or even believable. This is a simple logic bomb. It does not prove, or even suggest there is a magical butt unicorn.
Revisiting Dawkins. I can not speak for Dawkins. So I will speak to myself and what I think Dawkins was trying to do with his belief scale. I am completely certain there is no God. I must concede that I do not know what I can not know. If God is defined as unknowable than I can not be intellectually, and logically honest and state "there is no God". Warning....logic bomb incoming!!!! I would therefore place myself at a six also.
I believe Dawkins was trying to assert that there is no God and be completely intellectually honest. This of course has been misunderstood and abused.
Butt logic has its benefits. If
If god is defined as unknowable, then I cannot claim there is no god.
If god is defined as a myth, a fable, or folklore, then I can claim there is no god with full confidence.
If god is defined as knowable, than I can see, hear, or feel evidence of god. I don't see valid and credible evidencre of god, even as people see him in images on toast, resort windows, in grottos, I do not believe their stories and lack belief in their claims.
Have I not mentioned I love your mind? Thank you for accomplishing in four sentences what I attempted to say.
I also enjoyed that logic Joan.
I have also enjoyed a talk by Neil DeGrasse Tyson where he uses the philosophical agnostic, yet practical atheist wordage.
I also like this Mark Twain quote: "If there is a god, he is a malign thug."
I really try to be good at one thing, understanding Christianity. You seem to know much about all things concerning religion and atheism. I will not attempt to match you.
Bro, it's not about matching me. I just know what I know, and I don't know half of what I'd like to. I think a large portion of what A|N is about (or what I HOPE it's about) is all of us learning from each other, and growing in confidence from that learning.
As it comes to Yahweh or his kid, believers are doing their faith thing ... and if you recall, Peter Boghossian defines "faith" as "pretending to know something you don't." The only (and I mean ONLY) source they have to refer to is their bible, and it is an infamous mess. The catch, of course, is getting them to recognize that, a difficult chore at best.
But Boghossian has pointed a means for us. It is neither easy nor fast and it may require the proverbial patience of a saint, but it can work.
Peter Boghossian? I have seen the quote....Thank you for much more work and investigation...I believe you have qualified my statement...
May I heartily suggest his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists. It outlines a very well thought-out strategy for applying Socratic techniques in conversations with believers in an effort to move them (in baby steps he calls "mini-inoculations") out of their faith. This approach is NOT for everyone, but it can be a powerful tool in discussions with believers.
I should also mention that Peter Boghossian is all over YouTube, and his talks are engaging and informative. Throw his name into the YouTube search box and be prepared for some GOODIES!
Honesty I'm really trying to be as cool as you to us kid terminology. How do you make links and references so quickly. Anyway I do believe his book is a must read.
Links and suchlike are pretty easy. I outline how to do all sorts of handy stuff in my A|N group, "How To Do It!" Have a look over there, and if you have any questions, please ask.
Actually I have learned much from your how to do it. The question was rhetorical... Thank you.