naijadeyhia:


Where did you get this your 95% from? Seun says Steven Hawkins is agnostic and you are contradicting that. What manner of twisted confusion are you guys in?

Your whole lives are ruled by definitions and not actuality to the extent you are all contradicting yourselves outwardly and if this be the case how then would your mental contradictions look like?

AnonyNymous:


Yes, you're missing my point.
@the bolded, agnostic atheism is not a logical fallacy because it doesn't explicitly state that there isnno god. Replace the bolded with 'so therefore, I do not believe your claims of a god'.

Here's an example, before the US election, all data, polls, statistical analysis,etc pointed to Hilary Clinton winning. (Good thing she didn't ) Now imagine someone came to you during the elections and said 'Donald Trump is winning'.

The logical fallacy (gnostic atheism) would be to say 'No, Donald Trump is not winning because you haven't shown me proof'

Agnostic atheism, on the other hand, says 'I don't believe that Donald Trump is winning, and until you show me proof (e.g switching on the TV and showing me a channel where the results are being displayed),I won't believe that Donald is winning because all my available evidence points to Clinton winning.

Agnostic atheism doesn't state that there is no god, rather, the agnostic atheist claims that he doesn't believe that there is a god - though his belief may be proven wrong. Agnostic atheism is nothing more than a hypotheses, waiting for available, valid/logical proof of the existence of god before it accepts that a god exists.

Seun:

Yet, if you ask them, they will tell you that they are very sure that God exists (by faith, I guess). I think this claim makes them gnostic theists.

KingEbukasBlog:


Your analogy is flawed because agnostic atheism claims that the evidence for God is unknowable or currently unknown.

That's why I said because of the absence of these , they say they do not belief in God . It is irrelevant if they are certain or not .

AnonyNymous:

It actually isn't. To them, the evidence available is insufficient.

tartar9:
As in,Atheists stiff-neck dogmatism is beneficial to them-imagine the sort of mental crises agnostics will be going through,especially at the time of death.The only possibility they would consider then will be that of God actually existing.

Seun:

You changed an "or" from the definition to an "and", which totally changes the meaning. Why did you do that?

If you want the truth here it is: "agnostic" is what atheists call themselves when they want religious people to like them. For example, let's say I meet a Christian lady tomorrow and I wish to get into her skirts. When she asks me about my beliefs, my best bet is to say "agnostic". The word "atheist" conjures an image of someone that is vehemently opposed to religion in their minds. The word "agnostic" sounds more friendly. You can also call yourself a "pantheist", which allows you to claim to believe in God by asserting that everything around us is God. What a neat trick.

raphieMontella:

simple.

KingEbukasBlog:
@ AnonyNymous

As an agnostic atheist will you acknowledge the existence of God is find irrefutable proof ? Yes

Therefore you are saying there is no God with or without certitude because of lack of contrary evidence and that's an appeal to stone fallacy.

A gnostic atheist will never acknowledge the existence of God even if God proves his power to him because He is certain there is no such thing as God.

KingEbukasBlog:

.

AnonyNymous:

First off, I am not an agnostic atheist. As for the above question, there is nothing wrong with accepting the outcome of an experiment.


I keep correcting this, and you keep repeating it. Maybe its because some of the atheists on Nairaland tend to speak like gnostic atheists. Replace 'there is no god' with 'I don't believe there is a god'. There is a big difference. The former is an affirmative statement that the motion is false. The latter is merely an opinion, which can be changed upon the arrival of irrefutable proof.


Neither will a gnostic theist, if it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that there is no god. I find both 'gnostic' positions to be highly illogical, because there is insufficient proof.
Gnostic theism holds a candle because the available 'proof' which everyone else claims is insufficient, is deemed sufficient by them

KingEbukasBlog:


This is what I'm working with . I'm not sure where you got your definition from

AnonyNymous:

First off, I am not an agnostic atheist. As for the above question, there is nothing wrong with accepting the outcome of an experiment.

I keep correcting this, and you keep repeating it. Maybe its because some of the atheists on Nairaland tend to speak like gnostic atheists. Replace 'there is no god' with 'I don't believe there is a god'. There is a big difference. The former is an affirmative statement that the motion is false. The latter is merely an opinion, which can be changed upon the arrival of irrefutable proof.

Gnostic theism holds a candle because the available 'proof' which everyone else claims is insufficient, is deemed sufficient by them.

naijadeyhia:
An atheist lacks faith in God, believes there is no god, or lacks awareness of gods. An agnostic either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue. The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews.

This is the true description of Atheism and Agnosticism. So which are you?

Seun:
From what authoritative source did you get this "true description"? Waiting for your answer...

Good evening!

Please, your attention is needed in the romance section urgently


There's one huge warring thread that has been trending since yesterday evening


It has been depriving other users from getting views on their thread(Imagine My last thread had only 72 views!! )


Please come and lock it.... Thanks!!

KingEbukasBlog:


AnonyNymous , assuming there was undeniable evidence for God (though there is ) the agnostic atheists won't have said that they are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

That is why it is agnostic atheism is illogical . It is a position based on lack of contrary evidence .

Do you now understand ?

Seun:
From what authoritative source did you get this "true description"? Waiting for your answer...

A person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one.

Seun:
From what authoritative source did you get this "true description"? Waiting for your answer...

AnonyNymous:

I don't think you understand the definition you're quoting. The definition defined agnosticism and atheism as two separate terms for you and that's why you're having a hard time understanding how agnostic atheism is not a fallacy.

AnonyNymous:
KingEbukasBlog

Here is the combined definition by urban dictionary to make it clearer:

A person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one.

.

naijadeyhia:
http://grammarist.com/usage/agnostic-atheist/

Seun:
I disagree with that source. Don't you think a dictionary would be a better source for finding out what a word means than some random website?

KingEbukasBlog:


Please stop separating both definitions , it is wrong to do so - this is where the problem is . You keep separating both views and tried to defend their views individually . The view of an agnostic atheistic is the emboldened text , that is his conclusion . The emboldened text makes him an agnostic atheist .

So let's say Christ comes today [proof or cogent evidence] do you think the agnostic atheist , will still hold the view which is the emboldened text?

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

A person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one.

KingEbukasBlog:
AnonyNymous:

Agnostic Atheist is person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one.

This is basically saying since God cannot be proven or disproven , I'll go with there is no God .

He made this conclusion out of ignorance or lack of contrary evidence , this makes it an appeal to ignorance .

AnonyNymous:

I'm not the one separating both decisions, you are! This is your definition I.e from Wikipedia, which defines both separately



The above definition merely defined what it means to be atheistic and what it means to be agnostic.

And I gave you this, which merged the two into one.


'Agnostic' is being used as an adjective.
Atheism by definition is illogical for being an appeal to ignorance. When the prefix 'agnostic' is added, it introduces uncertainty. See all the analogies I've given you. They make the whole thing quite simple.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-fallacies-or-problems-in-saying-you-are-an-Agnostic-and-an-Atheist

Read this, maybe I'll help. I've exhausted everything I want to say. If you don't still understand, I'm not sure I can explain it any better.

KingEbukasBlog:
AnonyNymous:

Agnostic Atheist is person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one.

This is basically saying since God cannot be proven or disproven , I'll go with there is no God .

He made this conclusion out of ignorance or lack of contrary evidence , this makes it an appeal to ignorance .