Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 13:05 (3641 days ago) @ romansh

dhw: Perhaps this is why Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic, because 6.9 out of 7 allows for the fact that nobody can "know" anything for certain. -ROMANSH: This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Can we ever be certain of anything?
 
You have repeated the point I made throughout the whole paragraph, but have ignored the conclusion which was its whole purpose: "And so we are ALL agnostics in that sense." If we wish to remain on that level, we might as well eliminate such terms as atheist and theist altogether. I am beginning to have great sympathy with Tony (see razzle pazzle Agnotipism atheolalidocious...). I then went on:-"And this is also why some of us opt for a less rigid definition: we neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. What exactly is your objection to this definition of agnosticism in its religious context?"-ROMANSH: I have no objection to this DHW. It is just that there is a large group of people who describe themselves as atheists who use the negative belief version of atheism. 
By your definition Dawkins is an agnostic (I think) and this is the type very person you rail against.-Theism: belief in the existence of god(s)
Atheism: disbelief in the existence of god(s) 
Agnosticism: neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of god(s) 
These words are used in order to distinguish between different approaches to the existence of god(s). This is because different people have different approaches to the existence of god(s) ... some believe, some disbelieve, and some can't decide either way. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 
Dawkins says god is (gods are) a delusion. That suggests to me that he disbelieves in the existence of god(s), which by my definition makes him an atheist if these terms are to have any meaning at all (see above, re epistemology which makes us ALL into agnostics). I do rail against people who ridicule other people's beliefs, especially when I feel (subjectively, of course) that their own beliefs are no more reasonable than those they rail against. I also rail against people who I feel (subjectively of course) twist language, resort to ambiguities, ignore questions, throw in non sequiturs, take comments out of context, and sometimes appear to argue for the sake of arguing.