So, a well known liar on the religion section was caught lying about atheist statistics. He argued against all the research-backed statistics of atheists in the world because the statistics included both "atheists and agnostics"

His argument was that agnostics are not atheists.


I am interested to see other people's opinions on this but before that, here are my reasons why agnostics are atheists.


1) When asked to fill in a "YES/NO" question about belief in God, agnostics from my experience always pick "NO".

2) Most studies on atheism I have seen group atheists and agnostics together when it comes to getting the total number of atheist. Even the wikipedia page on atheist statistics does this. Some even group atheist and agnostics as the same.

3) There are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. Even atheist lord Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic.

4) Agnostics, be they pure agnostics or even atheist agnostics, do not have a positive believe in god.They could be undecided or on the fence but they still do not have any positive belief towards god.

5) Regarding point number 3, here is the Dawkins scale;







SO DO YOU AGREE THAT AGNOSTICS ARE ATHEISTS?

cc, hahn, hopefullandlord, adepeter2027, hardmirror, deepsight, jayriginal, tingtingz, ultron12345, otematum, Ioseph et al

it depends on how you define atheism

the main reason I didn't bother to involve myself in the discussion yesterday was not because I didn't have something to say but because I've observed a very huge dishonesty used in defining atheist by Christians

one day its "Someone who lacks belief in any god"

on another its "someone who believes no god exists"

on another day it would be "Someone who says no god exists"

On another day it becomes "Someone who rejects deification"


I've always observed they chose whatever definition they want based on the agenda they have so I don't even bother with such a discussion anymore as I've observed its usually 2 people talking past each other, one trying to force an agenda and the other not seeing through the other person


TBH I'm starting to care less and less about labels because they most likely don't describe us well, it puts us in a position where we have to defend ourselves in relation to the group they say/we say we belong to

Here's MY own position on this, I'm agnostic to a "Creator" I'm of the opinion that there's still a possibility that there's a creator, however I'm not saying there's one and neither saying there isn't BUT for the claims of religious gods I'm a 100% atheist especially the abrahamic god,

the problem now starts when I'm to label myself/ when people are to label me, I emphasise myself as an atheist because those I usually discuss with are people that subscribe to the god I'm atheistic to; I will only become agnostic when someone like Deepsight, Raphiemontella, NPComplete, Anonynymous brings up their own idea of god, since I haven't argued with them in my close to 2 years of being in the religion section, I see no reason to claim agnostic; what then do those I'm atheistic to their god do? they hide under the god idea of those I mentioned up there and then tell me to defend my "Atheistic" stand; this becomes problematic and when I tell them I'm agnostic to that idea of a god they'll accuse me of being dishonest

I've observed most Nairaland atheists actually hold my stand too


let me stop this rant here and get back to your question, are agnostics also atheists? it depends on how you define the word "atheist"

or let me ask you, what label would you give me based on my stance?

hopefulLandlord:
it depends on how you define atheism

the main reason I didn't bother to involve myself in the discussion yesterday was not because I didn't have something to say but because I've observed a very huge dishonesty used in defining atheist by Christians

one day its "Someone who lacks belief in any god"

on another its "someone who believes no god exists"

on another day it would be "Someone who says no god exists"

On another day it becomes "Someone who rejects deification"


I've always observed they chose whatever definition they want based on the agenda they have so I don't even bother with such a discussion anymore as I've observed its usually 2 people talking past each other, one trying to force an agenda and the other not seeing through the other person


TBH I'm starting to care less and less about labels because they most likely doesn't describe us well, it puts us in a position where we have to defend ourselves in relation to the group they say/we say we belong to

Here's MY own position on this, I'm agnostic to a "Creator" I'm of the opinion that there's still a possibility that there's a creator, however I'm not saying there's one and neither saying there isn't BUT for the claims of religious gods I'm a 100% atheist especially the abrahamic god,

the problem now starts when I'm to label myself/ when people are to label me, I call myself agnostic atheist, agnostic to creator so long there are still things we as humans don't know yet, I'm atheistic to ALL the religious gods I know; I emphasise myself as an atheist however simply because those I usually discuss with are people that subscribe to the god I'm atheistic to; I will only become agnostic when someone like Deepsight, Raphiemontella, NPComplete, Anonynymous brings up their own idea of god, since I haven't argued with them in my close to 2 years of being in the religion section, I see no reason to claim agnostic; what then does those I'm atheistic to their god then do? they then hide under the god idea of those I mentioned up there and then tells me to defend my "Atheistic" stand; this becomes problematic and when I tell them I'm agnostic to that idea of a god they'll accuse me of being dishonest

I've observed most Nairaland atheists actually hold my stand too


let me stop this rant here and get back to your question, are agnostics also atheists? it depends on how you define the word "atheist"

or let me ask you, what label would you give me based on my stance?

From what you have said, you are a 6 on the dakwings scale of 7. This means that you're an agnostic atheist.

You, just like budaatum know that "creator" and "god" are not the same thing. So, you are agnostic towards a creator and atheist towards all gods.

Interesting.

JackBizzle:



From what you have said, you are a 6 on the dakwings scale of 7. This means that you're an agnostic atheist.

You, just like budaatum know that "creator" and "god" are not the same thing. So, you are agnostic towards a creator and atheist towards all gods.

Interesting.

this is why almost all stats capturing atheists become open to bias

They change their definition of atheists based on whim, This is the main reason I booked a space on your thread yesterday but didn't do anything with the space

when they say "Atheists population is increasing/decreasing" what do they define as "atheist" out of the 4 different definitions I gave up there? or is there another one they're using? none of you or Kingebukasblog knows what they mean yet you guys kept arguing with each other on it, I guess observing discussions can make one see clearer than involving oneself sometimes; This question of what they define as atheist makes me think all these demographics and census are not only unreliable but borders on total uselessness!

In that Dawkins' scale, what does he mean by "God"?

hopefulLandlord:


this is why almost all stats capturing atheists become open to bias

They change their definition of atheists based on whim, This is the main reason I booked a space on your thread yesterday but didn't do anything with the space

when they say "Atheists population is increasing/decreasing" what do they define as "atheist" out of the 4 different definitions I gave up there? or is there another one they're using? none of you or Kingebukasblog knows what they mean yet you guys kept arguing with each other on it, I guess observing discussions can make one see clearer than involving oneself sometimes; This question of what they define as atheist makes me think all these demographics and census are not only unreliable but borders on total uselessness!

In that Dawkins' scale, what does he mean by "God"?

He was talking to a Rabbi, if I remember clearly, so it must have been a religious God

JackBizzle:



He was talking to a Rabbi, if I remember clearly, so it must have been a religious God

if its religious gods then I'm a whooping 7 on that scale; at least based on the religious gods I know of right now

hopefulLandlord:


this is why almost all stats capturing atheists become open to bias

They change their definition of atheists based on whim, This is the main reason I booked a space on your thread yesterday but didn't do anything with the space

when they say "Atheists population is increasing/decreasing" what do they define as "atheist" out of the 4 different definitions I gave up there? or is there another one they're using? none of you or Kingebukasblog knows what they mean yet you guys kept arguing with each other on it, I guess observing discussions can make one see clearer than involving oneself sometimes; This question of what they define as atheist makes me think all these demographics and census are not only unreliable but borders on total uselessness!

In that Dawkins' scale, what does he mean by "God"?

As for the stats, they ask a question

Do you believe in God or higher power- Yes or No?

So, the stats are not biased.
=================================

Sometimes, the questionnaire asks which beliefs you belong to;

hopefulLandlord:


if its a religious god then I'm a whooping 7 on that scale; at least based on the religious gods I know of right now

No shaking bro. I am the same on that. Religious gods are supernatural skydaddies....(and goddesses)

JackBizzle:



As for the stats, they ask a question
Do you believe in God or higher power- Yes or No?
So, the stats are not biased. =================================
Sometimes, the questionnaire asks which beliefs you belong to;

okay, nice discussion but let's step back a bit here
what do they mean by "Higher Power"?

hopefulLandlord:


okay, nice discussion but let's step back a bit here

what do they mean by "Higher Power"?

I truly have no idea. Maybe some people's gods are not conventional gods. like some greek gods that can be fooled and appeased?

JackBizzle:


No shaking bro. I am the same on that. Religious gods are supernatural skydaddies....(and goddesses)

Now were heading somewhere, a Christian/Muslim hears I said his god doesn't exist, that I'm 7 to HIS god, then calls me dishonest for not maintaining that 7 to "God of the gaps"

hopefulLandlord:


Now were heading somewhere, a Christian/Muslim hears I said his god doesn't exist, that I'm 7 to HIS god, then calls me dishonest for not maintaining that 7 to "God of the gaps"

I understand. Kingebukaslog and butterflylying are specialists in acting obtuse and twisting people's words. The other day, I told butterflylying that I am not just an atheist and that I'm also a humanist- can you imagine that the guy started saying that I was being dishonest? As if someone can not hold two different ideas on a multi-dimensional concept like religion.

Agnosticism should fall under atheism.

I'm yet to see someone who is agnostic about God and then claims to be a theist.

hopefulLandlord:
it depends on how you define atheism

the main reason I didn't bother to involve myself in the discussion yesterday was not because I didn't have something to say but because I've observed a very huge dishonesty used in defining atheist by Christians

one day its "Someone who lacks belief in any god"

on another its "someone who believes no god exists"

on another day it would be "Someone who says no god exists"

On another day it becomes "Someone who rejects deification"


I've always observed they chose whatever definition they want based on the agenda they have so I don't even bother with such a discussion anymore as I've observed its usually 2 people talking past each other, one trying to force an agenda and the other not seeing through the other person


TBH I'm starting to care less and less about labels because they most likely doesn't describe us well, it puts us in a position where we have to defend ourselves in relation to the group they say/we say we belong to

Here's MY own position on this, I'm agnostic to a "Creator" I'm of the opinion that there's still a possibility that there's a creator, however I'm not saying there's one and neither saying there isn't BUT for the claims of religious gods I'm a 100% atheist especially the abrahamic god,

the problem now starts when I'm to label myself/ when people are to label me, I call myself agnostic atheist, agnostic to creator so long there are still things we as humans don't know yet, I'm atheistic to ALL the religious gods I know; I emphasise myself as an atheist however simply because those I usually discuss with are people that subscribe to the god I'm atheistic to; I will only become agnostic when someone like Deepsight, Raphiemontella, NPComplete, Anonynymous brings up their own idea of god, since I haven't argued with them in my close to 2 years of being in the religion section, I see no reason to claim agnostic; what then does those I'm atheistic to their god then do? they then hide under the god idea of those I mentioned up there and then tells me to defend my "Atheistic" stand; this becomes problematic and when I tell them I'm agnostic to that idea of a god they'll accuse me of being dishonest

I've observed most Nairaland atheists actually hold my stand too


let me stop this rant here and get back to your question, are agnostics also atheists? it depends on how you define the word "atheist"

or let me ask you, what label would you give me based on my stance?

This is all I would have said...
Thank you, Sir.

We simply don't know anything about a Creator/First cause, I don't think we ever can - Agnostic.

All religious gods are not known to exist - Atheist. If you disagree, it is pointless to argue, just bring out your God from hiding.

JackBizzle:



From what you have said, you are a 6 on the dakwings scale of 7. This means that you're an agnostic atheist.

You, just like budaatum know that "creator" and "god" are not the same thing. So, you are agnostic towards a creator and atheist towards all gods.

Interesting.

Correction
Buda knows "creator" and "god" are not the same thing.

Buda knows "creator" and "god do not exist.

Buda is not agnostic to "creator" and "god".

Buda is atheistic to "creator" and "god".

Buda will be a 7 on Dswkins scale.

Hope that's clear.

superhumanist:
Agnosticism should fall under atheism.

I'm yet to see someone who is agnostic about God and then claims to be a theist.

Straight to the point.

budaatum:

Correction
Buda knows "creator" and "god" are not the same thing.

Buda knows "creator" and "god do not exist.

Buda is not agnostic to "creator" and "god".

Buda is atheistic to "creator" and "god".

Buda will be a 7 on Dswkins scale.

Hope that's clear.

Buda is a cool guy.

ScepticalPyrrho:
This is all I would have said...
Thank you, Sir.

We simply don't know anything about a Creator/First cause, I don't think we ever can - Agnostic.

All religious gods are not known to exist - Atheist. If you disagree, it is pointless to argue, just bring out your God from hiding.

Do you think the dawkins scale is particularly helpful?

JackBizzle:



Do you think the dawkins scale is particularly helpful?

Yes. Funny enough, I think it even helps with my deism. I am at number 3 on the dawkins scale

JackBizzle:



Do you think the dawkins scale is particularly helpful?

I think it should help sincere religionists on NL to understand our position a little better.

We're atheist when they tell stories about their various deities. And when they talk about the possibility of the universe originating from an intelligent being, we are agnostic to this claims.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I think it should help sincere religionists on NL to understand our position a little better.

We're atheist when they tell stories about their various deities. And when they talk about the possibility of the universe originating from an intelligent being, we are agnostic to this claims.

Some are!

budaatum:

Some are!

Anyone who assumes otherwise would have to prove their knowledge.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Anyone who assumes otherwise would have to prove their knowledge.

Prove that there is no creator? Is is not sufficient that there is no evidence for one? I haven't come across one and no evidence exists to prove that there is one. Those who claim there is a creator may believe there is one, but their assertion carries as much spending power as the imaginary million pounds I plan to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari with.

budaatum:

Prove that there is no creator? Is is not sufficient that there is no evidence for one? I haven't come across one and no evidence exists to prove that there is one.

I couldn't agree more.

Those who claim there is a creator may believe there is one, but their assertion carries as much spending power as the imaginary million pounds I plan to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari with.

Haha..

ScepticalPyrrho:
I couldn't agree more.

Haha..

Lol. Thanks for making me laugh. You rock!

JackBizzle:
So, a well known liar on the religion section was caught lying about atheist statistics. He argued against all the research-backed statistics of atheists in the world because the statistics included both "atheists and agnostics"

His argument was that agnostics are not atheists.








SO DO YOU AGREE THAT AGNOSTICS ARE ATHEISTS?

Too long. Agnostics are atheists. End off.

There's only one question. Do you believe in "God"? Any answer other than yes renders the person an atheist.

I must add that it's not that cut and dried but at its most basic, that's the bottom line.

Technically everybody is agnostic - both theists and atheists. Nobody can know for certain or make conclusive claims about god existence or inexistence - not even the theist or the so-called gnostic atheists. In fact I think it's just a blatant display of arrogance to claim to know there's a god or there's not one. So we're left with belief. You either believe or you don't. Agnosticism doesn't equate to sitting on the fence - it's simply the position of every person towards God. The question that ascertain one's label - theism or atheism - is a simple one: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?

It's not surprising people are not asked "do you know about God existence?" because it's a useless question - we're all agnostics. Anybody tagging himself gnostic or whatever is just being plain stupid and arrogant.

STUPUDTHEISTS:
Technically everybody is agnostic - both theists and atheists. Nobody can know for certain or make conclusive claims about god existence or inexistence - not even the theist or the so-called gnostic atheists. In fact I think it's just a blatant display of arrogance to claim to know there's a god or there's not one. So we're left with belief. You either believe or you don't. Agnosticism doesn't equate to sitting on the fence - it's simply the position of every person towards God. The question that ascertain one's label - theism or atheism - is a simple one: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?

It's not surprising people are not asked "do you know about God existence?" because it's a useless question - we're all agnostics. Anybody tagging himself gnostic or whatever is just being plain stupid and arrogant.

Wow, that's a hard-line absolutist view. You are technically correct though. Where you are wrong is the fact that we can be 100% sure that the Abrahamic god does not exist. This is because it is nonsensical and contradictory.

Atheists DON'T KNOW God. Agnostics know but DON'T BELIEVE in God. The Difference is in Knowledge and Believe(Faith in God).

orunto27:
Atheists DON'T KNOW God.
Agnostics know but DON'T BELIEVE in God.
The Difference is in Knowledge and Believe(Faith in God).

poor definition of agnostic. Agnostic don't know God

superhumanist:


Wow, that's a hard-line absolutist view. You are technically correct though. Where you are wrong is the fact that we can be 100% sure that the Abrahamic god does not exist. This is because it is nonsensical and contradictory.

Abrahamic god is an imaginary friend