I don't think either one were agnostic.
Typically, agnostics don't have beliefs. That's really the whole point, and what distinguishes them from the other two groups.
I claim most do have a belief-based system. Most of them believe there is no god just as strongly as theists believe there is one.
That's not quite accurate. Agnostics claim the existence of a god can be considered to be irrelevant. Virtually all do think there is no god, but they know it cannot be proven either way.
That is clearly not accurate. Agnosticism is a much more logically defensible position because it doesn't require belief while the two extremes do.
Formaldehyde said:
You can claim whatever you like. Again, atheism has one requirement. Lack of believe in a god. Whether they strongly believe there isn't one, or just reason that the probability is too low to consider taking it into account, or simply don't care, it's all atheism. I claim most don't care.
Yes or no answer: Do they have a believe in a god or gods? If the answer is no, well, they're atheists. It's really that simple.
You really do have a superiority complex don't you? Look I see what you're getting at. If you label atheism a certain way you can feel smug and superior to it. It's just too bad that most agnostics are atheists too.
Atheism doesn't require belief. It requires lack of one specific belief.
So you don't believe there is no god in general, but you do believe there is no Zeus or Yahweh specifically?
I claim otherwise, but perhaps that is merely because they are much more vocal about it. Ironically, many seem to be quite irrational about it and can't even discuss the issues without taking it personally, much like the theists.
No, it is obviously not that simple unless you want to try to completely ignore agnosticism, which is apparently what you are indeed trying to do.
Not at all. I merely think agnosticism is much more defensible than atheism or theism from a philosophical standpoint because it is the only one that that doesn't require belief (or lack thereof if you prefer and it upsets you so much).
That is rather ironic given the nature and tone of your posts so far, wouldn't you say?
Semantics. I put more weight on the fanaticism of the individuals. From that perspective, there isn't all that much of a difference between the strident atheists and the fundamentalist theists. They both know they must be right, even though neither can possibly prove it.
Most atheists in real life really don't care in my experience. And I'm not taking your opinion of atheism personal, don't worry. More about that later.
Not at all, since I subscribe to it myself.
What upsets me is my apparent inability to explain my position to you. The position that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. What also upsets me is that it seems you're not listening, because for some reason you're determined to portray atheism as a whole as irrational. But the thing is, and my point is, that there is no such thing as atheism as a whole, because a diverse group subscribes to it.
I think that that was the first time I showed a bit of irritation. You may of course illustrate the tone of my posts so far by direct quotes, but I believe it was quite civil until that remark right there.
See, I agree with this. (Because you said strident atheists) I think there are 2 major groups in atheism. 1. Those who are absolutely sure there is no god. a position which is indeed also based on faith. 2a. Those who disregard the existence of a god because although they acknowledge that the theoretical possibility is there, it's of no relevance and 2b. Those who disregard the existence of a god because they simply don't care. The second group makes no positive statement about the existence or non-existence about gods. And they're just as logical and rationally defensive as agnostics, because they are agnostics.
There is the problem right there. You are guilty of what you claim I am guilty of doing. I thought I made it quite clear that I was referring to the fanatics who try to push atheism as though it was the next hot religion. The ones who feel like they must openly attack the theists as though they were stupid and ignorrant for merely disagreeing with their own opinions.
You really characterize claiming that I have a superiority complex and that I feel "smug and superior" to all atheists as being "quite civil"? Hmmm.
Well, there you go. You not only claim to be an agnostic yourself while trying to tear down your obvious misundersstanding of my own positions on the topic, you also admit that you actually agree with me to a great extent.
If you don't want to "waste your effort", I would suggest actually trying to understand the other person's opinions before trying to attack them. And as always, the personal attacks don't really help much.See, now I'm repeating myself again. And it's probably again wasted effort
In that case, can't I be simply misunderstanding you?
Allow me to quote myself as well: I believe it was quite civil until that remark right there.
Well, I do apologize if I read you the wrong way. This might have put me on the wrong foot. Ironically, many seem to be quite irrational about it and can't even discuss the issues without taking it personally, much like the theists.
What personal attacks?
I think you went quite a bit past that point.
I thought you were referring to my remark you just quoted, not your previous remarks. And while I wouldn't exactly characterize your zealous attack on what you incorrectly perceived my opinions to be as 'civil', I agree there were personal no attacks up until that point.
Zealous attack
No, Death Machine proposed earlier that ecosystems were a proof of intelligent design.
This is where I come when I'm in a bad or argumentative mood, because I know the vast majority of posters here have the exact oppositve viewpoints that I have. This is not the forum I visit regularly, and my personality here is not what it is elsewhere.
