Dictionary definitions of agnostic (with regards to the deity):

* One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God

* a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

(respectively AHD, Webster) (and many others, but space precludes).

Wow, those definitions certainly sound like me and it sounds like I would be a prime example of an agnostic. But if that were so then AJ would be wrong, and by definition that can't be and he'll write endless, increasingly contradictory posts to prove it.

Now it seems that since part of the definition of an atheist " included the lack of belief" then anyone who lacks belief is an atheist. A bit like part of a definition of a Communist is being on the left proves that anyone on the Left is a communist...or something.

"No, again, I never said that. [the reason theism is in decline is because we now know so much more]."

Really? Do I have to go back and find the actual quotes? Only to be told that when you said what you said, you said something quite different to what you said. I certainly recall that you excused Newton's beliefs on that basis that he wasn't as knowledgeable as we.

"I'm still waiting for an answer on how you did that, too, by the way."

And you'll continue to wait. Firstly it ought to be obvious what my reasoning is to arrive at that point and secondly, its a waste of effort since you are merely looking for some ambiguity to try to salvage some credibility. After you'd asked incessantly for my reasoning behind crediting Christianity with some of the advances in Western Civilisation, I relented and wrote on that issue. Whereupon you decreed that it wasn't an issue you wanted to pursue, because, I assume, my point was unassailable. Equally you've ducked all other issues in regards to Christianity's place is western civilisation apart from simply asserting that you don't want to credit it with those advances.

Thanks for the definitions, mhaze.

<<(respectively AHD, Webster) (and many others, but space precludes).>>

Not really, you have seven more posts for the next 24 hours. Here, I‘ll help you out:

The OED:
“A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.”

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic

Dictionary.com:
“a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable …”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic?s=t

Cambridge dictionary:
“someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists”

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agnostic

<<Wow, those definitions certainly sound like me ...>>

Wow, they sure do. I’d say the same about myself, too, depending on how one defines ‘knowledge’. Looks like we’re both agnostic-atheists.

<<But if that were so then AJ would be wrong …>>

No, I wouldn’t. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive (nor do any of those definitions suggest otherwise). I’ve already noted this:

“Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions, each addresses a different question.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252481)

You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?

<<Now it seems that since part of the definition of an atheist " included the lack of belief" then anyone who lacks belief is an atheist.>>

What do you mean “now”? That’s the way it’s always been.

<<A bit like part of a definition of a Communist is being on the left proves that anyone on the Left is a communist...or something.>>

No, you have it arse-backwards. This isn't analogous at all.

Communism is a form of Left-wingism, just as strong atheism is a form of atheism. Therefore, while one can be a left-winger without being a communist, one cannot be a communist without being a left-winger; likewise, while one could be an atheist without being a strong atheist, one cannot be a strong atheist without being an atheist.

Moving on, I liked this misquote from you:

Continued…

...Continued

<<"No, again, I never said that. [the reason theism is in decline is because we now know so much more].">>

You knew I was talking about your claim that I had supposedly said that belief is independent of knowledge - my inclusion of the word “again” should have made that clear - and yet you deliberately omitted that part of what I said in your quote. You’re such a slimy character.

<<Firstly it ought to be obvious what my reasoning is to arrive at that point [that it is more likely than not that “the deity” exists] …>>

No, it’s not. You don’t even know yourself, do you?

<<... and secondly, its a waste of effort since you are merely looking for some ambiguity to try to salvage some credibility.>>

Oh, please, tell me where I lost credibility, won’t you? Was it in that imaginary hole that I supposedly dug myself into? Funny that you cannot elaborate on what you were talking about there, don’t you think?

<<Whereupon you decreed that [Christianity’s contribution to the rise of the West] wasn't an issue you wanted to pursue, because, I assume, my point was unassailable.>>

No, your point relied on the same old unconvincing conjecture, just as I suspected. That my main concern is the truth of religious claims is something I have always maintained:

“My primary concern, however, has always been the truth of the claims, because that's ultimately what matters.” (15/10/2017) (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19345#343937)

Nice attempt at rationalising your way out of explaining what you know you can’t, though.

No matter. I suppose the contradiction in your claim, that you can evaluate the chances of the existence of something you insist is unknowable, makes my point for me anyway.

<<Equally you've ducked all other issues in regards to Christianity's place is western civilisation …>>

No, I Hadn’t: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252248

<<... apart from simply asserting that you don't want to credit it with those advances.>>

I have said nothing of the sort. You're telling porkies again.

Actually, mhaze, I don’t think it was just the “again” that made what I had meant obvious. It was that entire paragraph. Observe:

AJ: "Theism and atheism don’t address knowledge. They are positions with regards to belief." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252532)

mhaze: “Struth, now it seems that belief/disbelief in the deity has nothing to do with knowledge... [you then quote me above]. So somehow this belief/disbelief simply materialises out of the ether with knowledge not playing a part.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252706)

AJ: “No, I haven’t said that. All I had said was what you quoted:” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252713)

[Despite my correction, you come back and have another crack at it:]

mhaze: “From the man who never tires of opining that the reason theism is in decline is because we now know so much more, we now find that belief is independent of knowing.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252744)

AJ: “No, again, I never said that. You even quoted me not saying that. Theism and atheism are belief positions. They say nothing of how one arrives at those beliefs, nor do they discount the possibility of knowledge as an influencing factor.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252770)

[It was obvious what I was denying, yet you pretended that I was denying something completely different with your misquote:]

mhaze: “"No, again, I never said that. [the reason theism is in decline is because we now know so much more]."” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252793)

The audacity is truly breath-taking. Worse still, you don’t even seem embarrassed by your actions!

Anyway, I thought I’d point that out in case you came back with the dishonest suggestion that I was trying to backtrack or re-frame the debate on that point.

Isn't it sad when we have to be cautious, almost to the point of paranoid, about every little word we say because the person with whom we are conversing actively seeks to misinterpret even the slightest ambiguity?

I often wonder if people like yourself consciously do what they do, or if they actually convince themselves of the legitimacy of their dishonest actions. It’s instances as calculated as those like the above that make me seriously doubt it’s the latter in your case.

It is possible to be a believing Christian, even to be a Christian missionary and admit the role that Christian churches played in assisting the Nazis in exterminating Jews. Unlike Not_Now.Soon and mhaze who got angry or made excuses for the evil behaviour of the Christian churches Colin Barnes wrote a book on the subject. Barnes believes that Jesus is the Messiah and tries to bring Jews to that belief. However, he does not deny what happened or make excuses.

https://www.kingsdivinity.org/books/they-conspire-against-your-people-125-detail

"This book explores the extent to which the European churches and their theology contributed to a mindset that permitted the genocide of six million Jews during the Holocaust.

Were the Catholic and Protestant churches of Europe rescuers, bystanders or facilitators? What emerges in this historical study is a commonality of word and deed, with the evidence indicating that Christianity in Europe was surprisingly united across time, space and sectarian divides in its view of the Jewish people.

The Holocaust was a progression of increasingly lethal measures: vilification, boycotts, deportation, ghettoization, and finally, mass murder. With the exception of the latter, these stages repeated the pattern of the European churches’ own Jewish policy in the centuries and years leading up to the Holocaust. This pre-existing pattern, based on the theological view of punitive supersessionism (that God had punished the Jews and replaced them with Christianity as his new people), proved decisive in determining the European churches' responses to the unfolding Nazi programme. Especially important is this study's treatment of Protestant perceptions of the Jewish people.

To the absolute extent of church precedent, Nazi policy was supported by both Catholics and Protestants. There was some discontinuity, centring on questions of definition (were Jews defined by race or religion) and final solutions, conversion or genocide. Yet this proved largely irrelevant; the churches never viewed their converts as a bridge to aiding the wider Jewish community, while the cumulative effect of support for all earlier Nazi Jewish policies left the churches morally incapable of opposing genocide. Instead they opted for a guilty, deliberate silence."

One more time. With some clarification. First clarification. I'm not expecting you to just believe me because I told you. I am retelling this as a means for anyone willing to test it out on their own. See if they observe the same results. But if you don't want to step that far, then go with second hand approach. If you find a friend who isn't Christian, then later on becomes Christian. Notice their behavior. See if it changes for the better or for the worse. More specifically see if their faults that you've known them by are frequent or less frequent. Though this is a subjective observation is is observable. Something you can actually see to confirm it being true or false. So one more time then.
...........
I know many of you for only a short amount of time. But please hear me out. Some of you don't know God, don't believe in Him, or come with contempt towards God, and to those who believe in Him.

I want to tell you what I know, from loving God.

When I am alone, I am weaker. Not to say that I am weak. In my mind I am weak, but to others, I am however they judge me. Weak or strong. But without God I am weaker. The same is true with loving God. When I focus on Him, and commit myself my love is stronger then it was before. Both my patience, and understanding, as well as any generosity or kindness. I can be a better person because God's love strengthens me to be better then when I am alone.

There are standards, there are sins. There is obedience and rebellion. But with all of this, even in spite of all this, God can strengthen us. This is what I've seen. It's what I know. The more you love God and are willing to be in His care, the stronger your love for others will be.
......................
(Continued)