When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[downbeatplumb]

Being at agnostic and being an atheist aren't necessarily two separate things.

I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.

The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.

One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism. 

I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.

Didn't realise they had the interwebz in 1887..

One of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism). The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.[4] If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...[4]

[Delicate]

One of the problems with atheists cherrypicking individual points that support their pre-established view is that they don't see the other half of the story.

Robert Flint's quote seems to address only one half: people who see no reason to believe that God exists.

The other half of the position is that these people see no reason to believe that God does not exist.

If they see no reason to believe the latter, what is the justification for atheism? Pure agnosticism, without any atheist pretensions, seems like the more justified view.

(Unless, of course, atheists desire to be atheists for non-rational reasons, and thus cling to the label atheism even if they have no justification for it).

So here's the bottom line: So-called "agnostic atheists" have to answer the question of whether they have any justification for believing that God does not exist.

If they answer yes, then they are atheists (not atheist-agnostics). If they answer no, they are agnostics (not atheist-agnostics).

[Esquilax]

One of the problems with atheists cherrypicking individual points that support their pre-established view is that they don't see the other half of the story.

Robert Flint's quote seems to address only one half: people who see no reason to believe that God exists.

The other half of the position is that these people see no reason to believe that God does not exist.

If they see no reason to believe the latter, what is the justification for atheism? Pure agnosticism, without any atheist pretensions, seems like the more justified view.

(Unless, of course, atheists desire to be atheists for non-rational reasons, and thus cling to the label atheism even if they have no justification for it).

So here's the bottom line: So-called "agnostic atheists" have to answer the question of whether they have any justification for believing that God does not exist.

If they answer yes, then they are atheists (not atheist-agnostics). If they answer no, they are agnostics (not atheist-agnostics).

Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?

[Delicate]

One of the problems with atheists cherrypicking individual points that support their pre-established view is that they don't see the other half of the story.

Robert Flint's quote seems to address only one half: people who see no reason to believe that God exists.

The other half of the position is that these people see no reason to believe that God does not exist.

If they see no reason to believe the latter, what is the justification for atheism? Pure agnosticism, without any atheist pretensions, seems like the more justified view.

(Unless, of course, atheists desire to be atheists for non-rational reasons, and thus cling to the label atheism even if they have no justification for it).

So here's the bottom line: So-called "agnostic atheists" have to answer the question of whether they have any justification for believing that God does not exist.

If they answer yes, then they are atheists (not atheist-agnostics). If they answer no, they are agnostics (not atheist-agnostics).

Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?

Not necessarily a victory. But I think it points out the self-deception atheists engage in. 

And intellectually responsible atheists care about not engaging in self-deception.

[Esquilax]

Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?

Not necessarily a victory. But I think it points out the self-deception atheists engage in. 

And intellectually responsible atheists care about not engaging in self-deception.

It's simply a label that best suits us. Agnostic means something, it derives from the root word "gnosis," meaning knowledge, and was coined specifically to denote a person that doesn't claim absolute knowledge of a thing, specifically in religious circles. It doesn't denote one's beliefs in any sense, merely their knowledge claims, demonstrably so. That the word has been corrupted by people misunderstanding it doesn't mean that it can't be fruitfully applied to people to more accurately describe their positions: I am an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not believe in a god (atheist) yet claim no special knowledge on that (agnostic.)

No self-deception, just a proper understanding of both words and their meanings. My label comes from knowledge, not deception.

[Delicate]

Not necessarily a victory. But I think it points out the self-deception atheists engage in. 

And intellectually responsible atheists care about not engaging in self-deception.

It's simply a label that best suits us. Agnostic means something, it derives from the root word "gnosis," meaning knowledge, and was coined specifically to denote a person that doesn't claim absolute knowledge of a thing, specifically in religious circles. It doesn't denote one's beliefs in any sense, merely their knowledge claims, demonstrably so. That the word has been corrupted by people misunderstanding it doesn't mean that it can't be fruitfully applied to people to more accurately describe their positions: I am an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not believe in a god (atheist) yet claim no special knowledge on that (agnostic.)

No self-deception, just a proper understanding of both words and their meanings. My label comes from knowledge, not deception.

Well I agree that it suits you.

I just think it suits you in the same way that diplomatic immunity "suits" diplomats who want to commit crimes without prosecution.

So I don't think it's a high-minded suiting. It's a self-interested suiting that doesn't necessarily line up with the interests of honest, substantive rational discourse.

And I'm perfectly aware that people will try and create rationalizations of this suitability, just like the diplomats in New York City rationalize their immunity to suit their preference to park anywhere they want without worrying about parking regulations.

But the bottom line of my position I've laid out in the previous post. The one to which you responded " Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?"

There, I pointed out that if you're truly an agnostic, the atheist part of your definition is superfluous, and vice versa. This view is better, in my opinion, because it's not based on tactical redefinitions to avoid burden of proof or enhance your debating position, allowing you to take the label of atheist while defending the position of agnosticism.

And I think it lines up better with epistemology, which takes belief and disbelief to be propositional attitudes.

[robvalue]

You still don't understand what the words mean and have made no attempt to do so. I linked you to my website where I explained in detail, clearly you've ignored it.

You feel the need to tell us what our position is in order to dismiss it. You also seem to think that we need to justify our position to you before we are allowed to hold it.

I'm done with you, you've a lot of growing up to do and right now you're just not ready for any kind of intellectual discussion. You are blinded by overconfidence, preconceptions and a refusal to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

[Delicate]

You still don't understand what the words mean and have made no attempt to do so. I linked you to my website where I explained in detail, clearly you've ignored it.

You feel the need to tell us what our position is in order to dismiss it.

I'm done with you, you've a lot of growing up to do and right now you're just not ready for any kind of intellectual discussion. You are blinded by overconfidence, preconceptions and a refusal to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

I understand perfectly well what the words mean.

What I reject is tactical redefinitions. Redefinitions designed for rhetorical, debating advantage, that are out of step with the rest of our established body of knowledge.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, it would do you well to understand my point here. You can do all you want to justify your redefinitions, but as long as it is motivated by rhetorical reasons as opposed to substantive, analytic reasons, I can't take it seriously.

What don't you understand about this?

[Edwardo Piet]

At the end of the day Delicate, you can debate as much as you like but...

There absolutely is no God

[drfuzzy]

You still don't understand what the words mean and have made no attempt to do so. I linked you to my website where I explained in detail, clearly you've ignored it.

You feel the need to tell us what our position is in order to dismiss it.

I'm done with you, you've a lot of growing up to do and right now you're just not ready for any kind of intellectual discussion. You are blinded by overconfidence, preconceptions and a refusal to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

I understand perfectly well what the words mean.

What I reject is tactical redefinitions. Redefinitions designed for rhetorical, debating advantage, that are out of step with the rest of our established body of knowledge.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, it would do you well to understand my point here. You can do all you want to justify your redefinitions, but as long as it is motivated by rhetorical reasons as opposed to substantive, analytic reasons, I can't take it seriously.

What don't you understand about this?

There is no god.  There is no heaven.  There is no hell.  The Wholly Babble is one of the worst compilations of offensive bronze-age mythology to ever have been created.  
You can do all you want to justify your religious stance, but there is no empirical evidence to support any of them, and you have failed, in every post, to provide any.
The only thing that you have convinced us of is that you are very good at insulting and disrespecting anyone who doesn't agree with your religious viewpoints.