(May 7, 2014 at 7:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I do not make the claim that gods don't exist because I don't think absolute certainty is possible.

By this logic, though, shouldn't all claims of any kind be avoided?

(May 7, 2014 at 7:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: That being said, to make a claim of certainty about the nonexistence of something that could qualify to be a god, I believe may be permanently beyond our capability to understand.

I don't think a hard atheist would need certainty. I should note that a 7/7 would, in fact, be a claim of certain knowledge, which I am not arguing for myself. Rather, I would consider myself a hard atheist in the sense that I believe gods don't exist (in the same sense I believe the sun will come up tomorrow), even though I am not absolutely certain. Courtroom (at least in the US) are supposed to give a verdict of guilty if there is no reasonable doubt of guilt, likewise, I will believe something if it would unreasonable not to.

Whether or not anyone should take this stance in an argument is an entirely different story. Given religious apologists' history for being disingenuous, deceitful, and slippery in debate (or actually so dumb that they genuinely don't understand your argument), we have enough of an unfair disadvantage in arguing honestly as it is; we can't afford to grant them any concessions they haven't already granted themselves.

EDIT: (i.e. I don't think hard atheism should be argued for, even if someone feels they are rationally justified in holding such a position. With the definition of hard atheist I am using, it is still possible to be a 'hard' agnostic atheist, which I would consider myself to be).

Some versions of God CAN be disproven. Others can't. The gnostic atheist position is that none of them exist. The gnostic atheist position is one that cannot meet its burden of proof. I'm satisfied the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, and no one I've taken on in that matter has been able to do better than re-define that God in a way that fundamentalists would not accept. Why should I take on every God of which anyone can conceive? If legislation isn't being based on what that God supposedly wants, it's enough that there's insufficient justification to believe that it's real, it doesn't really matter if it can be disproven.

I'm on my phone and had an excellent reply typed out. Took forever on my phone...then I accidentally deleted it. Screw it. I'll post my reply tomorrow.

Goddamnit...

I asymptotically approach 7/7 on the Dawkins scale, but don't actually make the claim that no god of any description exists. My Religious Views phrase above '6.99999999/7 atheist' indicates 1 chance in 700 million. I don't really think it is that likely, but I didn't want to take up more space with nothing but 9s. I am perfectly happy believing no god exists without certainty.

The fool says in his heart that there IS no God.
A more reflective individual says that there could be a god, but at the moment, the evidence for one is so lacking that the most plausible conclusion is that none exists.

(May 7, 2014 at 4:57 pm)ThePinsir Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: No... I'm just not comfortable with that. I'm not even comfortable stating "invisible pink unicorns do not exist".

I'm actually legitimately curious. Why not??

I'm not Rexbeccarox, but I'll respond because I would make that statement, too.

I'd say that, because I technically cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns, that it would be technically incorrect to say there are none. Now, that being said, there are two caveats I keep in mind:

• I have no reason to believe they do exist, either.
  
• I am quite doubtful that they exist, and if I had to pick a yes or no answer, I'd be more comfortable with "no".
  

That being said, at the end of the day, I see no reason to let the possibility of invisible pink unicorns affect my life because I see no reason to believe in them. So, functionally speaking, I live my life as though there are none. The only time this distinction would really even come up in basically in a debate.


TL;DR: I live my life as though there are no invisible pink unicorns, and if they do exist, they don't seem to be affecting me. Maybe they exist somewhere, but who cares?

I just think there are better things to do than pursue an argument against the existence of gods. Such beliefs are sufficiently nonsense to prevent your actually succeeding. But belief in gods is sufficiently prevalent to make you wonder why. In wondering why I do not for an instant suppose it is at all likely that a literal god exists. It clearly has more to do with how we're wired. So then some will assume it is merely a mistake carried out from a time before we knew better. I'm not so sure that is true. Until I understand the positive benefit which god belief provides I'm not on board for snuffing it out. I do think helping people to put it in some sort of perspective is worthwhile. It is the fundamentalists who cause the most trouble. I'd rather reform belief than snuff it out.

Ok, I'm back.

The agnostic atheist approach certainly makes sense. I'm not denying that. Being a 6.99999/7 is a legitimate position. But...

What about things we know were fabricated. If you're a 6.999/7 for gods, would you also call yourself a 6.999/7 for Superman? We can trace the origins of Superman, we know Superman is a construct of the human imagination, etc. I think being a 7/7 for the existence of Superman is a perfectly logical position. We can take the burden of proof and run with it by citing the date of the first Superman comic, or whatever.

If I made up a deity in my mind right now, we'll call him the Dlonra, the god of bodybuilding. He's got amazing quad sweep, massive biceps peaks, and perfect symmetry. If you worship him and pray to him, you'll have better gains and place better in competitions. I admit, with this sentence, that I fabricated the god Dlonra (Arnold spelled backwards lol). He's completely fake. Surely you wouldn't consider yourself "agnostic" or a 6.9/7 for my bodybuilding god? Surely you'd make the positive assertion that Dlonra doesn't exist?(But maybe I'm wrong...).

Likewise, I think we can do the same with all gods, knowing that they're fabricated bs.

I come fairly close to the point of 7/7 with regards to Abrahamic Monotheism. The evidence is that the Jews fabricated the whole thing in a fairly specific time period for a plausible motive with a plausible suspect; (Ezra ~450BCE) christianity and islam simply layer extra lies on top.
However the 7/7 is a blanket statement and I can't point to the same level of certainty regarding other religions.

For a deistic God I am 6/7 and for all others I am a strong Atheist. But I think that it's important to note the difference between a 6 and a 7 is merely a philosophical one.

---

(May 8, 2014 at 10:47 am)ThePinsir Wrote: Ok, I'm back.

The agnostic atheist approach certainly makes sense. I'm not denying that. Being a 6.99999/7 is a legitimate position. But...

What about things we know were fabricated. If you're a 6.999/7 for gods, would you also call yourself a 6.999/7 for Superman? We can trace the origins of Superman, we know Superman is a construct of the human imagination, etc. I think being a 7/7 for the existence of Superman is a perfectly logical position. We can take the burden of proof and run with it by citing the date of the first Superman comic, or whatever.

If I made up a deity in my mind right now, we'll call him the Dlonra, the god of bodybuilding. He's got amazing quad sweep, massive biceps peaks, and perfect symmetry. If you worship him and pray to him, you'll have better gains and place better in competitions. I admit, with this sentence, that I fabricated the god Dlonra (Arnold spelled backwards lol). He's completely fake. Surely you wouldn't consider yourself "agnostic" or a 6.9/7 for my bodybuilding god? Surely you'd make the positive assertion that Dlonra doesn't exist?(But maybe I'm wrong...).

Likewise, I think we can do the same with all gods, knowing that they're fabricated bs.

I think there is a difference between your made up off the top of your head god and a deistic one to which one prescribes no characteristics. I'm not saying that I'm a believer in either one, but to paint them as the same thing is short sighted. All of your points address Gods with a specific characteristics. So yes, I am a strong Atheist when it comes to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Trinity, Zeus. But what of a Deistic God that made life arise from non-life? I find such an entity extremely unlikely, but as long as people don't prescribe other characteristics to it, I can't say with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist.

I'm of the opinion that many of these conversations about strong atheism and gnostic atheism center around trying to make modern ideas of knowledge and certainty fit into outmoded epistemological concepts. The idea of knowledge requiring "absolute certainty," being a certainty that will endure for all time, simply doesn't apply in science, as science concerns itself with that which hasn't been demonstrated to be false, not with "that which has demonstrated itself to be true (with absolute certainty)." If absolute certainty were a requirement of knowledge, we'd have to retire the word knowledge. It would have no justifiable application in the modern world. So is it possible to have certainty without absolute certainty? Is a proposition in which we have extreme confidence, but not certainty, not also something that we "know" to be true? What does it mean to "know" something — is it a necessary part of knowing that the proposition known be infallible? I don't believe so. I think it's perfectly legitimate to claim that you know something if you are certain, without being absolutely certain.

Is it possible that some of the reluctance to claiming knowledge of things we aren't absolutely certain of is a reluctance to consider one's views as irrational and unjustified as the theist?

I think that's part of it, and that's reinforced by an overly strict definition of knowing and knowledge. Such definitions of knowledge require the proposition claimed to be false to be not simply highly unlikely, but impossible. I don't think that's a useful bar to set for "knowledge," and it harkens back to the epistemology of logical positivism in which "to know" something was to have positive confirmation of it. Contemporary views on knowledge emphasize probability in the face of uncertainty, not absolute certainty.

Just spitballing, but I suspect the emphasis on agnosticism rather than gnosticism may also hinge on the belief that one can make one's views completely veridical and justifiable, the hope that one can construct one's beliefs without faith or arbitrary assumption. To my view, all knowledge rests on assumptions, which, in terms of their justification are completely arbitrary. You can't eliminate assumptions from your beliefs and knowledge, but, I think a naive view of belief and knowledge presupposes that you can, and the presupposition that one could "purify" the foundations of one's belief, may lead one to avoiding propositions and views that do not appear 100% justifiable. The problem is, there are no such beliefs, and to pursue that goal puts one on an endless treadmill of trying to justify one's beliefs in terms of unobtainable certainty.