Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

[Adrift]

It's exactly what Huxley had in mind, as your own sources show:

...They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble...

...I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence;...

...It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe...

...Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena...

Huh? The part I was taking issue with in your post was obviously your confusing of terms by asserting that there is such a thing as theist or atheist agnostics. That should have been clear not only based on my underline, but also in the other quotations I cited. Nothing in the above requotes says anything about an atheist agnostic or a theist agnostic. To the contrary, Huxley says that both atheists and theists claim a certain gnosis and that the agnostic does not claim gnosis.

Agnosticism is neither belief nor lack of belief, but acknowledgement that no knowledge is possible one way or the other. Or, as I put it: "don't believe the god(s) can be shown to exist/don't believe it can be shown that no god exists".

It isn't necessarily an acknowledgment that no knowledge is possible one way or the other (though it may be that), it is also an acknowledgement that the knowledge is simply currently unavailable (at least, to the agnostic himself).

P.S. Huxley may have coined the term "agnostic", but he didn't coin the term "atheist", so his usage of that term is not binding.

His use of the term atheist was and is standard. As Craig points out in the article I cited, it's only in the middle of the twentieth century that certain atheists started promoting this concept of the so-called "presumption of atheism", and it's only within the last decade or so that this new redefining of atheism has spread through the internet. But most people, and including most atheists in the world, stick with the traditional definition of atheism to mean "the belief that there is no god/s". Again, as Craig points out, when asked whether one is a theist or an atheist, what is really being asked is "Do you believe there is a god/s or not?"

[Sparko]

No. I'm not saying atheism has any "orthodox" anything.Have you never heard of polytheistic or pantheistic religions? 'God' most certainly does not mean those religions.Wrong. Atheism means "no god or gods", just like theism originally meant "belief in a deity or deities" prior to being co-opted by monotheists.

pedantic much?

[Adrift]

Obviously. Thanks for proving my point.

How does that prove your point? First of all, Natural Theology does not only have to do with theoretical first causes. It gets into a number of different issues besides cosmological arguments. Nor do cosmological arguments stop at the idea of a first cause, it progresses towards why that first cause is more plausibly divine, than, say, abstract. Also, framing it as something a theist "rapidly retreats" to is...strange. Theologians conceived of the arguments that make up Natural Theology while theism itself was still the vastly predominant position within scholastic circles. What exactly were they retreating from?

[psstein]

Are you at all familiar with Natural Theology? One of the cool aspects of Natural Theology is that it argues the case for god/s without heavy reliance on revealed theology (i.e. Biblical or Koranic).

Which is why Maimonides, Aquinas, and Averroes could all come to the conclusion that the God of classical theism exists, yet reject each others religions. Among atheists especially, there's an implicit belief that natural theology is supposed to show that the Christian god exists, which is beyond the purpose of natural theology.

Natural theology is a bridge to other elements. You wouldn't go around trying to prove the Resurrection if you have questions whether or not God exists in the first place.

[element771]

Which is why Maimonides, Aquinas, and Averroes could all come to the conclusion that the God of classical theism exists, yet reject each others religions. Among atheists especially, there's an implicit belief that natural theology is supposed to show that the Christian god exists, which is beyond the purpose of natural theology.

Natural theology is a bridge to other elements. You wouldn't go around trying to prove the Resurrection if you have questions whether or not God exists in the first place.

I agree with this 100%. If I am not convinced that God exists, then there is not point in thinking about the resurrection.

I was not until I was confident in my position on whether God existed or not until I moved to Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

I thought it was clear. Atheism doesn't do what you said it does. Atheism doesn't make a claim that philosophical naturalism is the justified result based on methodological naturalism.

That is exactly what my references show that Dawkins and others claim. The objective evidence that is applied to scientific methods is Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism is simply the philosophy of atheism, and possibly agnosticism where the only objective evidence of science is the only evidence believed..

Check Tassman's posts out, and you will find his argument is mostly an objective evidence based argument against theism.

I think it is, but not on the grounds you stated.Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief.

A lack of belief is a belief choice.

[firstfloor]

A lack of belief is a belief choice.

Beliefs are not a matter of choice.

[seer]

Beliefs are not a matter of choice.

Sure they are, I choose to believe that you are an AI with seriously faulty programming... Prove me wrong...

[Sparko]

Beliefs are not a matter of choice.

Then you have no rational reason for being an atheist. It just 'happened' to you.

[shunyadragon]

Beliefs are not a matter of choice.

Then they are a matter of what . . .????

Do you believe in some sort of predestined belief without a choice.

[Starlight]

I don't know if you would count Latin America as Western world (the maps in the wiki page for the term do include us, so... )

I would count it as hugely US-influenced.

[Starlight]

Starlight, the kick people out of your threads rule is not there for people to just isolate themselves from people they disagree with. Adrift has been civil and on topic. You can't just arbitrarily kick him out for no reason or just because he is beating you in debate.

Wow. So people do it all the time, and sometimes in the thread OP, but I'm not allowed to do it once after he's started to derail the thread? You're so inconsistent it's hilarious.

In my view Adrift has consistently been rude, dishonest, disingenuous, stated falsehoods etc throughout his interactions with me on TWeb over the years. There is a reason at least 3 atheist posters on these boards flatly refuse to engage with him now. He is displaying those same traits once again IMO in this thread, which is why I am requesting he leave.

[firstfloor]

Then they are a matter of what . . .????

Do you believe in some sort of predestined belief without a choice.

Beliefs are what you hold to be true to some degree. If you do not believe in unicorns you cannot simply decide to start believing in them.

[shunyadragon]

Beliefs are what you hold to be true to some degree.

Does not really answer the questions as to why we believe. I cited Dawkins who clearly described his belief was based on the lack of objective evidence for the existence of Gods, and if simply review Tassman's post his argument is clearly the same. I can cite many atheists and strong agnostics who present the same argument.

If you do not believe in unicorns you cannot simply decide to start believing in them.

What if you found objective evidence for the existence of unicorns?

[Sparko]

Wow. So people do it all the time, and sometimes in the thread OP, but I'm not allowed to do it once after he's started to derail the thread? You're so inconsistent it's hilarious.

In my view Adrift has consistently been rude, dishonest, disingenuous, stated falsehoods etc throughout his interactions with me on TWeb over the years. There is a reason at least 3 atheist posters on these boards flatly refuse to engage with him now. He is displaying those same traits once again IMO in this thread, which is why I am requesting he leave.

if you banned him in the OP that would be one thing. banning him because you dont like him, then letting him back in and banning him again is abusing the privilege. we are getting ready to clarify the rules on this very soon because this seems to be a point of misunderstanding among the members and even the staff.