jonbellion:
what a buffon
You can be agnostic about any claim you dolt
Almost all athiests are agnostic because th can't say with certainty there is no god but you just don't have a belief just life you can't say with certainty leprechauns don't exist
Just because your want athiests to say with certainty there is no god which unfortunately for you is not what most atheists say
You believe in polygenesis and you have the guts to open your dirty mouth
Define logic
Merry Christmas

the easiest way to know an Agnostic Atheist position is an illogical position is to think about the Agnostic theist position lol yeah, think about it . All atheist based on the latest definition of atheism either lacks a belief in God (they don't have any right to ask for burden of proof for God or claim there is no God since they simply lack belief eg ) or disbelief in God (got burden of proof for disbelief claims ).

Agnostic atheism is a neologism, with an inherent contradictory construction (based on Huxley's definition of agnosticism) so it is an appeal to epistemic luck, hence a fallacy!

further more there is no definition of atheism the way u described urs up there, if there is, show us

if u can't say with certainty 100% that leprechauns don't exist it means u believe they don't but not 100% certain which means u still have burden of proof for ur claims that they don't because 1 all claims of non existence and existence gets to prove their claim and remember, absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and again NEGATIVES can be proven eg. there is no square circle .

in conclusion, as long as Atheist CANT say how the universe was caused but keep believing its not God they keep making a fallacy from ignorance and having blind faith

Blogthug:



the easiest way to know an Agnostic Atheist position is an illogical position is to think about the Agnostic theist position lol yeah, think about it . All atheist based on the latest definition of atheism either lacks a belief in God (they don't have any right to ask for burden of proof for God or claim there is no God since they simply lack belief eg ) or disbelief in God (got burden of proof for disbelief claims ).

Agnostic atheism is a neologism, with an inherent contradictory construction (based on Huxley's definition of agnosticism) so it is an appeal to epistemic luck, hence a fallacy!

further more there is no definition of atheism the way u described urs up there, if there is, show us

if u can't say with certainty 100% that leprechauns don't exist it means u believe they don't but not 100% certain which means u still have burden of proof for ur claims that they don't because 1 all claims of non existence and existence gets to prove their claim and remember, absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and again NEGATIVES can be proven eg. there is no square circle .

in conclusion, as long as Atheist CANT say how the universe was caused but keep believing its not God they keep making a fallacy from ignorance and having blind faith

Not believing that some claim is true while also not claiming to know for sure that it's false is not only easy, it happens in lots and lots of different topics. I gave an example with arsenal
The reason why I started identifying as an atheist was because I was mistook as one I usually went by agnostic
But I just thought "hey I don't believe in gods.anyway so what the heck I'm technically an atheist
not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing
I don't claim to know how the universe was formed I don't even know if it was god so the burden of proof isn't on me in any way
It's not something I really tend to care about but I do know religion is man-made I like to identify as agnostic but people keep tagging me as athiest and it's annoying

jonbellion:

Not believing that some claim is true while also not claiming to know for sure that it's false is not only easy, it happens in lots and lots of different topics. I gave an example with arsenal
The reason why I started identifying as an atheist was because I was mistook as one I usually went by agnostic
But I just thought "hey I don't believe in gods.anyway so what the heck I'm technically an atheist
not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing
I don't claim to know how the universe was formed I don't even know if it was god so the burden of proof isn't on me in any way
It's not something I really tend to care about but I do know religion is man-made I like to identify as agnostic but people keep tagging me as athiest and it's annoying

u are still forgetting the most important thing, THEISM from definition is a belief position and so don't claim to know that God exists in the first place, yet they get burden of proof for saying they believe in God from atheists during arguments , u don't know there is God fine, u believe there isn't since one that's a fair claim , burden of proof falls on u too to prove there isn't a God. all Claims of knowledge or beliefs gets burden of proof

and further more following TH Huxley ( the guy who coined the word agnosticism) he says as I quote " A man shall not say he KNOWS or BELIEVES that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to KNOW or BELIEVE. u will only be intellectually dishonest to ignore his stance since he coined the term himself

it was Anthony flew in trying to sell idea of atheism to the World who redefined atheism to make the Agnostics like u feel they were atheists, research the philosophical definition of the terms and ud find the truth, it was an intellectual dishonest move to redefine a long used philosophical concept on metaphysics mind you he later converted to a deist after examining strong evidence supporting God.

be careful, there are lots of pseudo information circulated by new atheists via their propaganda memes ,always research before u believe

Blogthug:



the easiest way to know an Agnostic Atheist position is an illogical position is to think about the Agnostic theist position lol yeah, think about it . All atheist based on the latest definition of atheism either lacks a belief in God (they don't have any right to ask for burden of proof for God or claim there is no God since they simply lack belief eg ) or disbelief in God (got burden of proof for disbelief claims ).

Agnostic atheism is a neologism, with an inherent contradictory construction (based on Huxley's definition of agnosticism) so it is an appeal to epistemic luck, hence a fallacy!

further more there is no definition of atheism the way u described urs up there, if there is, show us

if u can't say with certainty 100% that leprechauns don't exist it means u believe they don't but not 100% certain which means u still have burden of proof for ur claims that they don't because 1 all claims of non existence and existence gets to prove their claim and remember, absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and again NEGATIVES can be proven eg. there is no square circle .

in conclusion, as long as Atheist CANT say how the universe was caused but keep believing its not God they keep making a fallacy from ignorance and having blind faith

a belief may comprise certainty and uncertainty..likewise a lack of belief...

Eg..i dont believe Chelsea will beat liverpool tonight..but i'm not sure...

I dont believe chelsea will beat liverpool tonight and i'm sure of it...

You see..its compactible...
Simple logic..

Even in religions..two opposites can merge for a set of beliefs..

Eg hinduism has a theistic version and also an atheistic version

MrMontella:

a belief may comprise certainty and uncertainty..likewise a lack of belief...

Eg..i dont believe Chelsea will beat liverpool tonight..but i'm not sure...

I dont believe chelsea will beat liverpool tonight and i'm sure of it...

You see..its compactible...
Simple logic..

Even in religions..two opposites can merge for a set of beliefs..

Eg hinduism has a theistic version and also an atheistic version

how about u either say I don't believe Chelsea would beat Liverpool or I'm not sure Chelsea would beat Liverpool? just because u decided to mix both together doesn't mean they are compatible it makes it bad grammar. it's logically identical to saying Uncommitted committed

also to show that the Agnostic atheism position is illogical so called Gnostic atheism would require a universal knowledge of universal negation . Gnostic atheism is categorically impossible except the atheist were omniscient (God)

yes, there are some version of Hinduism that believes in God while some do no and so are atheistic and MOST importantly, Agnostic (meaning one who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe). is still very much a belief position .

Do some philosophical research
start here http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic

Blogthug:


how about u either say I don't believe Chelsea would beat Liverpool or I'm not sure Chelsea would beat Liverpool? just because u decided to mix both together doesn't mean they are compatible it makes it bad grammar. it's logically identical to saying Uncommitted committed

also to show that the Agnostic atheism position is illogical so called Gnostic atheism would require a universal knowledge of universal negation . Gnostic atheism is categorically impossible except the atheist were omniscient (God)

yes, there are some version of Hinduism that believes in God while some do no and so are atheistic and MOST importantly, Agnostic (meaning one who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe). is still very much a belief position .

Do some philosophical research
start here http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic

nvm

Because Deists accept that they do NOT have infinite knowledge so they believe there is a possibility there is a supreme creator... they are not militant like atheists and christians.

Blackbolt:
Deism sounds worse than theism. What could lead one to have such a belief?