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.
No wonder I find poetry confusing! There are rules that make no reasonable sense, except to find words that rhyme, or follow numerical patterns.
Therefore I scent,"
Said the theoretician.
Foolish! he didn't smell; only
Geez, I wasted a half hour trying to do the 2,4,6,8,2 thing.
I honestly don't like poetry or philosophy. Just say a duck is a duck. This may be due to my western upbringing. I noticed with my Russian friend....they just talk poetry, it is really difficult to put that through a translation program. It is beautiful and elegant yet I just prefer..dat Dar is a duck.
Yes! the story Alex Haley tells of finding Kunta Kinte being taken in Africa, came to the southern states, enslaved for many generations and Haley hearing the African side of the story his grandmother and elders told of Kunta Kinte as a slave in the early part of the nation continues to give me goosebumps. They had to have a rhythm to the story to be able to pass it on all those years.
I have great respect for the history of African slaves in the Colonies and the U.S. The remnants of that awful system slaps us in the face trying to awaken its inhumanity,
Pose a question:
What does this have to do
With the video I posted?
Loren, you are better at this than I. Not a surprise!
Also, we continue to drift off topic as our minds wander off into the universe of thoughts.
given us gifts
of thoughts most intriguingly fine,
Reject belief in gods
Rather than saying none exist.
Loren, a reply to your question: What do the above posts have to do with the video you posted?
I viewed it and replied with the quintain because its final two lines ("Bunk! He didn't feel; he only Half was.") describe well what men are trained to do and so often do, avoid saying how we feel.
No one in the video told how he felt about what xians say about atheism. All I heard were words. At the video's end I knew no more than I did at its start.
Few presentations that refer to dictionaries identify their uses: to describe or to prescribe--to tell how words have been used or to tell how words should be used.
I heard a lot of confirmation bias and endless words.
My youngest great-granddaughter is in the "Why?" phase of development. Each answer only provides the fodder for the next "Why?"
Same with anything attached to the word "atheist"; Each well reasoned, defendable, and coherent response supplies the subject for the next question! Ad infinitum
One finally gets to the point of responding, "Because I said so!" Thus, religion makes me say the stupidest things.
OH WAIT! Nothing makes may say stupid things, I am the author of my stupid things.
Kids incessantly asking "Why?" are great for digging down to our axioms, the basic beliefs we hold just because, either without being able to articulate more fundamental reasons, or else in a circular self-reinforcing foundation. (Jonathan Glover mentioned this in Causing Death and Saving Lives, in discussing moral reasoning in general, and examining several popular bases for valuing human life and considering killing wrong.)
The difference between us and religionists is that we can't fall back on "God said so and that's the way it is."