im submitting this so theres no character cap.
My responses in quote.
1) (from dictionary.com here) “doctrine: a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated”
atheists generally hold all different beliefs but one is in common and has to be in order to be an atheist, and that is the belief that, without a doubt, there is no god-
Some atheists describe themselves as strong atheists. Belief that there is no god. These are the extreme minority since such a position is logically unsustainable. Did you even care to read my previous post? Obviously not. Below is the common definition of atheism. You can’t make an exception the rule. Simple as that. Atheism requires absolutely NO belief. Much less dogma or doctrine. Things you failed to mention since there are NONE.
From merriam-webster.com (bold is mine):
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
agnostics do not believe that there is no god nor do they believe that there is a god, agnosticism is to believe that a god is possible not that there is or is not one, it has nothing to do with knowledge, proof, or facts its a belief just like atheism or theism.
Agnosticism says nothing about belief. It is about knowledge. Agnostic from the greek which means NO KNOWLEDGE. Google it.
(taken from skeptics dictionary here) “Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.
Exactly. A position about knowledge of god, not belief in one.
It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural.”
Well said. I am an agnostic. Also atheist. No problem. See my previous post for details.
being an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist is a stance however that is not the default stance
A lack of belief is the default stance. Unless you believe in everything and anything without any knowledge of what those things actually are/are not. We have a word for these people: gullible.
an agnostic atheist/theist holds that there is no human knowledge to show the existence or nonexistence of a god but they still hold the bias that there is or is not a god
False. I don’t carry any bias. If evidence of a god surfaces, I will be more than happy to believe. But till that day I reserve my belief in gods. Again, agnostic atheists has no knowledge of a god hence lacks a belief in it. Where is the bias in this?
id also like to add this quote from the same source because its ironically applicable and also seems to sum up my thoughts on the subject better than i could articulate
“Finally, there is an argument, popular among some who fancy themselves intellectuals, that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take with regard to gods. According to this viewpoint, theism and atheism are arrogant affirmations of being certain about something that is intrinsically unknowable. It is, of course, true that it is possible there is some unknowable being or entity who creates universes, has unimaginable powers, and is like nothing we have any experience of. No atheist that I know of has ever denied such a possibility, nor have we denied the possibility of an unknowable Easter Bunny who lays eggs on Saturn or any other imaginable epistemic improbability. So what? Atheists and theists do not concern themselves with epistemic improbabilities, but with gods about whom stories have been told for millennia.
A quick clarification, god is the most encompassing epistemic improbability anyone can assert. The only reason atheists have to contend with it is because results of believing in such affect everyone either they want it or not. How old the belief is has nothing to do with it. See points #1 to #4 in the FAQ for more details.
If a group of people would come today with a dogma based on the Easter Bunny and presented it as reality I can assure you atheists would also devote time to debunk, ridicule and address it. I bet theist would do too. They don’t allow religious competition (see the crusades, persecutions, beheadings all the nasty stuff that happens when one group of believers clashes with another group of believers).
The more we learn about the universe, the less reason there is for believing that any of these gods were not created by human imagination.
Agnosticism regarding Zeus or Abraham’s god is not an intellectually honest position, as it can be maintained only by a fatuous and dishonest treatment of the available evidence.
True. And omnipotent god is an impossibility (would such a god create a rock so heavy he can’t lift himself?). It creates logical contradictions. Like how an all just god is incompatible with an all merciful one.
That evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that all gods fashioned thus far in the minds of men are highly improbable. Agnosticism regarding unimaginable, unknowable beings is redundant.”
Point is well taken. That being said, the word agnostic means literally “no knowledge”. That is why, as stated in my previous point, agnosticism is not a middle point between theism and atheism. Thanks for the quote as it supports my position quite nicely.
2) okay thanks for the information…
You’re welcomed. My pleasure.
3) i was referring to knowledge that would disprove that an outside influence was at work
i realize that there is no such thing as evidence of nonexistence-
Ok then. Thanks for conceding the point.
that was kind of the point but thanks for restating my conclusion
i would have made it plainer but it seemed to me to be obvious what i was saying about proof of nonexistence
You might try to convert atheism into an assertive position only (belief there is no god) instead of what it actually is (lack of belief in any god) to the immense majority of people who describe themselves as atheists. At the end of the day such efforts are not only false but a really weak straw man. Not only is such a line of “reasoning” old it has been debunked to full extent.