My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok fine that the matter is settled. I just wanted you to know that I didn't ignore any responses. And if I had done (which I didn't, as I showed above) it would have been accidental.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

From a rather trustworthy source (http://www.infidels.org) [underlining by me]

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an "agnostic" as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism."

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning that it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

So this clearly pictures the difference between the 'inconclusive evidence' variety and the 'absolute sure that we will never know' variety and underlines the pitfalls of going by the label alone.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hmm. I do also get your point that it is Unknown or Unknowable. And not and unknowable. Good post.

EvF

[chatpilot]

I have stated for so long that I am a strong atheist simply because the "evidence" we have in my view weighs heavier towards the side of the nonexistence of god. Not only that, I view the so called existence of god as a creation of the imagination of mankind's attempts at explaining the unknowable. Ancient mythology demonstrates this so clearly that it would be foolhardy to ignore it. The ancients called the unknowable god, gods, or goddesses and alot of what they believed we have been able to scientifically explain. We in our modern day are committing the same error, it is not right to call what we don't know or perceive to be unknowable god.

[Edwardo Piet]

We in our modern day are committing the same error, it is not right to call what we don't know or perceive to be unknowable god.

Well I certainly agree with that point... it's misleading. Quantum mechanics is very much unknown for instance.... and we wouldn't call that "god".

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Quantum mechanics is very much unknown for instance.... and we wouldn't call that "god".

QM is very much known, but just poorly understood.

[Meatball]

Quantum mechanics is very much unknown for instance.... and we wouldn't call that "god".

We (you or I) wouldn't. There are actually a lot of people that would, though. A quick google search brings up a few of those people.

I might side with the position that god is unprovable, mostly because the common definitions of god are designed to be unprovable. We can't see or otherwise observe him and he doesn't work in reliably testable ways.

[fr0d0]

it is not right to call what we don't know or perceive to be unknowable god.

Absolutely. That would be the imperceivable & the unknowable.

That which we are unable to comprehend fully or know fully is not the same thing at all.

[chatpilot]

I forgot to mention that even the so called characteristics of god are made up by men. Everything we claim to know about god or gods come from ancient myths and legends. The bible and the Koran and other ancient texts are also works of fallible men. So in my opinion it is illogical to base our so called knowledge of god on these works. To accept someones claim to divine revelation is also illogical and unreasonable since as I have stated many times as well, a revelation is only a revelation to the one claiming to receive it. To the rest of us it's just hearsay.

[fr0d0]

You present no valid reason to dismiss the ideas chatty. Words are called 'divine revelation' when they can't be bettered. People have honed their ideas around God since they were able to think.

You are not expected to accept anyone else's personal revelation as your own, the experience of God cannot be impersonal.