A deist is very confused about our essay on atheism and agnosticism.

American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
A deist is very confused about our essay on atheism and agnosticism.

I'm opening this thread because some deist, Iconoclastithon, decided to open a thread at FreeThinkingTeens, (instead of doing that here), and wanted to post a criticism/challenge to the essay on this site "Am I Agnostic or Atheist". Which was written by Todangst, I believe.

You can read it here.

Atheist Books


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and what's with all

Oh, and what's with all these people challenging Todangst, anyway?


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist wrote: Oh,

American Atheist wrote:
Oh, and what's with all these people challenging Todangst, anyway?

 

Because he so often makes sense in contradiction to their own opinions.  Some people hate that, for whatever reason.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Tod has a big ego too.

Tod has a big ego too.

 EDIT: I just realized the last sentence is half vowel.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
There's a difference

There's a difference between "big ego" and self-confidence.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: There's a

Susan wrote:

There's a difference between "big ego" and self-confidence.

 

Bingo. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
here's my

here's my reply:

 

Quote:

Greetings fellow freethinkers.


I joined up to your forum because I wanted to post a criticism/challenge to the essay on this site "Am I Agnostic or Atheist", due to a couple fallacies therein, in which I detect a subtle bias of Atheist superiority complex in the reactionary attitude against monotheism and Christianity/Islam

The name of the essay is "Am I agnostic or atheist?" and it's intended to help people who refer to themselves as 'agnostics' to realize that they are 'agnostic atheists'. There's no 'atheist superiority complex' in it. Perhaps you have an inferiority complex?


Quote:

, I have no problem with Atheism- it is a reasonable BELIEF

Atheism is a lack of a belief. Only strong atheism is a belief.

 

Quote:

{I will explain how Atheism is a belief and faith in short by saying that ONLY "Soft Agnosticism and it's adjerents has any right to the claim of beeing w/out belief and of beeing faithless,

There's no such thing as 'soft agnosticism'. Agnosticism is an epistemological position on whether one can possess 'gnosis' or god knowledge...  

No atheist position, either weak or strong, requires faith. 

Quote:

Atheism is a negative faith/belief, if you are Athiest you believe w/out FULL proof that not even a first cause prime mover exists,

Negative belief? What you mean to say is: a lack of belief.

As for first cause arguments: they are just bad cosmology. They are arguments from ignorance.  There's no compelling reason to hold arguments from ignorance. And seeing as there is no such thing as a' burden of disproof', it is rational to not believe in such claims.

 

Quote:

you have a BELIEF and a soft/weak/ or "reasoned" faith}- my problem is with the current crop of Militant Atheists that want to monopolize freethought,reason, and science in reactionary arrogance against The Monotheists

Sounds like you have a bunch of personal issues against atheists, and not any actual argument against my essay.


    Again, the name of the essay is "Am I agnostic or atheist?" and it's intended to help people who refer to themselves as 'agnostics' to realize that they are 'agnostic atheists'.

Quote:

The essay contains the following quotes which I will attempt to challenge...

[Quote/]So there's really no 'middle ground' here, gentle reader. If you have any sort of doubt that leads you to not believing in the claims of theism, then you're an atheist.
[Unquote/]

This could not be further from true.


The attempt of Militant Atheism to undermine Agnosticism and Deism in the current Militant Atheist movement in North America and the western world is arrogant,counter-productive, and ignorant.

Again, it sounds like you have some personal issues you wish to work out, not an argument against me. All you've done is assert my claim isn't true, and then launched into some personal attacks....

 

Quote:

I FULLY doubt...wait I DISBELIEVE in the claims of Theism, but I am not a Atheist, closet Atheist, or Athiest in denial of my Atheism.

You go on to say that you're a deist, however. This is why you are not an atheist!

Again, the name of the essay is "Am I agnostic or atheist?" and it's intended to help people who refer to themselves as 'agnostics' to realize that they are 'agnostic atheists'. It has nothing to do with deists.

 

Quote:

An Agnostic, and a Deist, are NOT Athiests in denial whom should just admit their Atheism.

I never say they are. My essay is directed towards people who call themselves agnostics, but who are really agnostic atheists.

 You've misread my essay.

 

Quote:

I refuse to be, as a deistm pigeonholed by unreasonable theists as an Athiest or Agnostic or watered down theist, and I refuse to be pigeonholed by Militant Atheists as a watered wdown theist OR a Atheist in denial; NONE of these describe me or deism.

You've misread my essay.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: There's a

Susan wrote:

There's a difference between "big ego" and self-confidence.

 

Frankly, he deserves most of his ego.

Just there is a rare chance of it getting the best of him.

Otherwise, GO TOD!!! 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Susan

Ophios wrote:
Susan wrote:

There's a difference between "big ego" and self-confidence.

 

Frankly, he deserves most of his ego.

Just there is a rare chance of it getting the best of him.

Otherwise, GO TOD!!!

There's no debate here. The fellow misread my essay to mean that a deist is somehow an atheist, if he is not a theist.... the rest of his post was a series of personal attacks on atheists driven by some feelings of insecurity, most likely... 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, just look at the other

Yeah, just look at the other stuff he disagrees with. I'll respond to him when I have time.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: There's no

todangst wrote:

There's no debate here. The fellow misread my essay to mean that a deist is somehow an atheist, if he is not a theist.... the rest of his post was a series of personal attacks on atheists driven by some feelings of insecurity, most likely...

Well, ya. I agree with you here. I was just talking about you as a whole. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Iconoclastithon
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Ophios

todangst wrote:
Ophios wrote:
Susan wrote:

There's a difference between "big ego" and self-confidence.

 

Frankly, he deserves most of his ego.

Just there is a rare chance of it getting the best of him.

Otherwise, GO TOD!!!

There's no debate here. The fellow misread my essay to mean that a deist is somehow an atheist, if he is not a theist.... the rest of his post was a series of personal attacks on atheists driven by some feelings of insecurity, most likely... 

 

Actually, I did not misread it as you implying that a Deist is an Athiest somehow, you misread me. I said that you were saying a Agnostic is an Atheist somehow.

Let me point something out. I spend alot of time and energy defending Atheists Against theists, because Atheists ARE the greatest recipients of persecution worldwide and always have been{in temr so belief}- and are right now in North America[U.S. especially}, and this bother sme because Atheism is a supportable and reasonable position to take.

HOWEVER... I'm the ultimate Iconoclast{as my name suggests} I even will debate fellow Deists and Deism- particularly to try and point out lack of reason in beeing a classic deist today{though not during the enlightenment era}. I've spent ALOT of time and Energy defending Atheism and Atheists in the last few years and caught flack for it; but I now go after certain TYPES of Atheist"s" as well for their lack of appreciation, for false double-standarrded arguments they make, etc; I see the most beloved Atheist spokemen in the west currently going to far in their arrogant and hypocritical MILITANT Atheism- especially Dawkins- when he ignorantly and arrogantly and STUPIDLY [obviously without any understanding of deism beyond classic deism, and any understanding of Pantheism beyond the modern sci-pans- and to some degree I can agree with him in their case because sci-pans are NOT PanTHEISTS they are indeed sexed up atheists}  called Deism{in general} "waterred down theism"- my wrath at his utter lack of understanding of Deism today was incurred; This seems to be a trend with modern western Militant Atheists, as is the trend of them downplaying or usurping Agnosticism; the Militant Athiests want to monopolize reason,freethought,evidence,science, secularism, and so on, it seems; they stepped beyond beeing simply Atheists and freethinkers into beeing reverse fundamentalists- and the truly reasonabel freethinkers such as myself are disgusted by their abuse of Atheism- the bad name they are giving this respectable viewpoint. So, I stand as their ideological enemy as I stand as such to ALL Absolutists whom cannot PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt their belief- their 'faith"{yes "faith"}.

Just because Atheists are persecuted, does not give them the right to turn into the same kinda assholes that the fundie monotheists are in their arrogant absolutism without proof.

My 'attacks" have NOTHING to do with insecurity, and everything to do with not wishing to see  reason,freethought,evidence,science, secularism, and so on, monopolized by arrogant absolutists.

In Reason:

Iconoclastithon 

"There is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than REASON, I have never used any other and I trust I never shall"-Thomas Paine

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon"-Thomas Paine


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
You decided to show up, huh?

You decided to show up, huh? I'll bump this, then.


Iconoclastithon
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist wrote: You

American Atheist wrote:
You decided to show up, huh? I'll bump this, then.

I did indeed. I am not as one member of the freethinkingteens forum accused me of beeing "afraid" to come here.

Best.

In Reason:

Icono

"There is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than REASON, I have never used any other and I trust I never shall"-Thomas Paine

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon"-Thomas Paine


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Iconoclastithon

Iconoclastithon wrote:

American Atheist wrote:
You decided to show up, huh? I'll bump this, then.

I did indeed. I am not as one member of the freethinkingteens forum accused me of beeing "afraid" to come here.

Best.

In Reason:

Icono

 

You really did act like it, though.  Stop making us all suspicious.


Iconoclastithon
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:
Iconoclastithon wrote:

American Atheist wrote:
You decided to show up, huh? I'll bump this, then.

I did indeed. I am not as one member of the freethinkingteens forum accused me of beeing "afraid" to come here.

Best.

In Reason:

Icono

 

You really did act like it, though.  Stop making us all suspicious.

 

Greetings AA.

How did I ACT it? And HOW and WHY am I making you all suspicious?

 In Reason:

Icono

"There is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than REASON, I have never used any other and I trust I never shall"-Thomas Paine

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon"-Thomas Paine


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
icono.  Wlecome

icono.  Wlecome aboard.

 I'm interested in what you define as deism.  Since you seem to be coming from position that some atheists have possibly mis-used or mis-understood, I'm interested to hear how you use the term so I can better understand your position.  I say this out of respect of understanding how frustrating it is to hear a person not of your persuasion use your terms incorrectly.

 For my part, this is how I defend a comment such as "deism is watered-down theism;"  My use of the term deism means someone who holds that a creator, who could be called God, exists (or existed, at very least) but plays no part in our religion, doesn't respond to prayer, etc.  Thus, it seems, from an historical point of view that this position is the result of not seeing a god's presence in the world now, but still seeing the universe as having been the result of some creator.

If you mean something different than this use of deism of mine, or simply see that this definition is not a form of theism that has certain aspects of a god un-used or mitigated (hence "watered-down&quotEye-wink, then please correct me.

However, as todangst tried to address, this has little to do with the issue between atheism and agnosticism.   Your point that agnosticism is not atheism is fair, and correct.  Agnostics could be theists or atheists, as agnostics simply recognize that they do not know.  However, tod was addressing the many self-proclaimed 'agnostics' out there that are also atheists but simply don't understand the definition of atheism.  They do not believe in God, and call themselves 'agnostics' rather than 'atheists' because a) they think atheists out-right reject that any gods exist, b) don't like the sound or association of the word 'atheist'  or c) both a and b. 

The point of the article was to show that there is a difference between the issues of agnosticism and atheism (they address different things--knowledge and belief, respectively) and that many people who call themselves agnostics are also atheists, but don't understand the distinction of their meanings.

Your point about deism is not even relevant.  It does not even address the article, let alone challenge it.  

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Iconoclastithon

Iconoclastithon wrote:

 

Actually, I did not misread it as you implying that a Deist is an Athiest somehow, you misread me.

No, I did not.  You wrote:

An Agnostic, and a Deist, are NOT Athiests in denial whom should just admit their Atheism.

Again, for a second time, my essay has to do with weak atheists who call themselves agnostics, when they are really agnostic atheists. Nothing in my essay claims that all non theists  are atheists.

This is your error. And I believe you make this error because you're a bull in a china shop, charging in where you should tread more carefully...  

 

Quote:

I said that you were saying a Agnostic is an Atheist somehow.

It sounds like you haven't even read what I said.

My point is that there are some weak atheists who identify themselves as 'agnostics' when in fact, they  are agnostic atheists.

 

You however, confused what I wrote, and instead made a rant about deists. You also brought up how deists are not atheists.

Here, look:

I wrote this:

Quote:
So there's really no 'middle ground' here, gentle reader. If you have any sort of doubt that leads you to not believing in the claims of theism, then you're an atheist.

And you responded by misunderstanding my intent, and then attacking me personally:

This could not be further from true.

The attempt of Militant Atheism to undermine Agnosticism and Deism in the current Militant Atheist movement in North America and the western world is arrogant,counter-productive, and ignorant.

Again,this is not my intent. It is an error born of your confusion.

You then wrote:

I FULLY doubt...wait I DISBELIEVE in the claims of Theism, but I am not a Atheist, closet Atheist, or Athiest in denial of my Atheism.

 

Again, my essay is about weak atheists who mistakenly believe that the proper term for their belief is 'agnostic'

You mistake my post for saying that any non theist is an atheist. I do not ever say any such thing. This is your misreading.

Please keep track of your own words.  

Quote:

Just because Atheists are persecuted, does not give them the right to turn into the same kinda assholes that the fundie monotheists are in their arrogant absolutism without proof.

My 'attacks" have NOTHING to do with insecurity,

Sounds like denial to me. You rant more than you argue, and you have issues with people you've never even met. Calm down, ask questions, don't assume, and don't attack.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:

However, as todangst tried to address, this has little to do with the issue between atheism and agnosticism. Your point that agnosticism is not atheism is fair, and correct. Agnostics could be theists or atheists, as agnostics simply recognize that they do not know. However, tod was addressing the many self-proclaimed 'agnostics' out there that are also atheists but simply don't understand the definition of atheism. They do not believe in God, and call themselves 'agnostics' rather than 'atheists' because a) they think atheists out-right reject that any gods exist, b) don't like the sound or association of the word 'atheist' or c) both a and b.

The point of the article was to show that there is a difference between the issues of agnosticism and atheism (they address different things--knowledge and belief, respectively) and that many people who call themselves agnostics are also atheists, but don't understand the distinction of their meanings.

Your point about deism is not even relevant. It does not even address the article, let alone challenge it.

Shaun

Thank you.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.