Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[leo-rcc]

The agnostic atheist would also probably affirm the non existence of Mithras or Baal or Zeus or tooth fairies.

As been said before: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

An agnostic atheist will say that it is highly unlikely that these things do exist, but that is still not evidence that it doesn't exist. But just because something very unlikely cannot be ruled out doesn't mean we should therefore assume these things do exist.

The data supporting their supernaturql existence however is exactly equivalent to any other god Inc Christianity.

 

Indeed, so why do you assume we treat those things any different?

Thus I think strong atheism is more consistent here.  It is not what we can know,

That is gnosticism/agnosticism

but what we are justified in believing that's important, and we are not justified in believing such wild, unsubstantiated claims.

That is not strong atheism, that is just atheism. Agnostic atheists have the same outlook on this as gnostic atheists, but we do admit that there is no evidence for the non existence of gods either.

If you can present evidence for the non-existence of Zeus, I'm all ears. until then, you also need to admit that neither of us can know for sure and are therefore agnostic to Zeus.

For me agnostic atheism reduces into just atheism, for whilst it is true that we cannot know whether there is a god, if you don’t believe in “God”, then the absence of evidence or reasoned argument for “God” necessarily entails that you also affirm the non-existence of “God”.

That does not follow. I can disbelieve anything with lack of evidence, I can believe anything with lack of evidence. I cannot however affirm the existence or non existence of something without evidence. Affirmation requires evidence either way.

Or said differently : only a Believer is deluded enough to look past the total lack of evidence.

You can use the lack of evidence in your reasoning to disbelieve a claim, however it is not logically sound to disprove the claim based on lack of evidence. You need evidence the contrary.

I think that agnostic atheism would also rightly point out, that they don't even know what the believer means by a god.  But this turns us to plain atheism again

And there is nothing wrong with that, atheism is not a claim, it never was.

as the argument from the meaninglessness of god, is in support of strong atheism stance and is consistent with other arguments  that demonstrate that the world is exactly as you would expect it to be if atheism were true.

Define "true"?

In addition I think many agnostic atheists would also claim to be at least partly 'strong' atheists for certain gods described by theists, given their incoherent secondary attributes.

Agreed, however gnostic theists can get around that easily by posing that the laws of logic need not apply to gods.

For one I am happy to move one stage further and debate these points owning the need to make the argument for atheism.

What argument for atheism?

As an atheist.  Do I have a burden of proof ? The burden of proof belongs to he who makes a claim about reality.

Which, if you are a gnostic atheist, you do. Gnostic atheists claim to know gods do not exist.

You seem to be confusing the concept of belief with the concept of knowledge. I think the OP does the same, thinking that agnosticism is some kind of fence sitting position but it really isn't. I am pretty certain gods do not exist, as certain as is possible, but until evidence for its non existence is produced, I cannot rule it out.

Does that make agnosticism superfluous? To me it does, so I hardly use the term. But I would never assert knowledge on the existence or non existence of gods, because it absolutely makes for an logically untenable position. I can therefor never call myself a gnostic atheist.

---

Since I'm waiting on the traffic to calm down before I can head for home anyway:

Sorry but if anybody is saying - even if just to make a point - that no evidence = no santa (or unicorns and fairies) is incorrect, then they are saying that there could possibly be a santa (or unicorns or fairies). This is completely laughable.

To arrive at the conclusion you make with this equivocation is not only logically unsound, it is dangerous should you ever attempt to use it in a debate with a theist with even a modicum of logical sense. People like Ryft and Tack would rip this silly argument to shreds, and rightfully so.

I'm disappointed.

The fact that you don't seem to realize how incredibly flawed your comparison is, is even more disappointing.

[Norfolk And Chance]

OK, you go around telling people that it is possible that tooth fairies exist in order to keep in check with your stringent philosophical rules, I'm fine with that.

However, nobody can tear me to shreds for stating that the tooth fairy is fictional, and that tooth fairy will not ever be proven real. They can try. This isn't even about philosophy. Just reality.

How do they believe it is possible that the tooth fairy could be real? Let's be hearing some theories, just for shits and giggles.

[Shell B]

But no one will admit they made god up, so there is a difference.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm not talking about god though Shell, I've failed to move on from the tooth fairy as yet!

[Tiberius]

However, nobody can tear me to shreds for stating that the tooth fairy is fictional, and that tooth fairy will not ever be proven real.

The tooth fairy is a fictional character for us yes, but unless you have some form of omniscience, you cannot make the claim that the tooth fairy will "not ever" be proven real. Unless there is some logical contradiction preventing the existence of tooth fairies, you cannot make that absolute claim. I challenge you to come up with that logical contradiction.

How do they believe it is possible that the tooth fairy could be real? Let's be hearing some theories, just for shits and giggles.

Suppose there is a planet out there, where small humanoid creatures exist, with small wings, that collect teeth from other creatures that have lost them.

I forget who said it, but the phrase "in an infinite universe, everything is possible" comes to mind.

Fact is, you don't know whether tooth fairies exist somewhere in the universe or not. You think you know, but you are deluding yourself.

[Darwinian]

I forget who said it, but the phrase "in an infinite universe, everything is possible" comes to mind.

Douglas Adams - http://www.angelfire.com/nc/bearhug/adams.html

[Jackalope]

OK, you go around telling people that it is possible that tooth fairies exist in order to keep in check with your stringent philosophical rules, I'm fine with that.

However, nobody can tear me to shreds for stating that the tooth fairy is fictional, and that tooth fairy will not ever be proven real. They can try. This isn't even about philosophy. Just reality.

How do they believe it is possible that the tooth fairy could be real? Let's be hearing some theories, just for shits and giggles.

I'm one of those "agnostic" atheists. We live in a universe made up of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, and presumably billions of planets. As I'm unable to examine all - or even a meaningful fraction - of the evidence, I'm not willing to make a strong claim that something (no matter how improbable) absolutely does not exist.

Do I think that the tooth fairy exists? No - and I'm as certain of that as I can be in the absence of evidence. Would I make an argument for the existence of same? No. I'm not terribly interested in making an argument against the tooth fairy either. To do so would be a waste of time as well - I simply do not care one way or the other.

I don't think anyone is going to tear you to shreds for stating that the tooth fairy is fiction. Well, Statler might, but he's a tool.

[Rayaan]

I'm pretty sure (but not 100% sure) that tooth-fairies are a man-made concept.

But still, in a world with so many possibilities, there may exist tooth fairies somewhere in the universe which can coincidentally match with the concept of tooth fairies even if someone made it up. Also, maybe there is even a planet where these little creatures fly into homes and then they put a dollar bill under the pillows in exchange for the alien's fallen tooth.

[Jackalope]

Also, maybe there is even a planet where these little creatures fly into homes and then they put a dollar bill under the pillows in exchange for the alien's fallen tooth.

Unfortunately for said aliens, U.S. currency is valueless on that planet.

[Norfolk And Chance]

The tooth fairy is a fictional character for us yes, but unless you have some form of omniscience, you cannot make the claim that the tooth fairy will "not ever" be proven real. Unless there is some logical contradiction preventing the existence of tooth fairies, you cannot make that absolute claim. I challenge you to come up with that logical contradiction.

The logical contradiction is that the tooth fairy is a fictional character not a real one. No need for me to get all complicated. That's it. Simple, and sound.

Suppose there is a planet out there, where small humanoid creatures exist, with small wings, that collect teeth from other creatures that have lost them.

We need to also add the caveat that these creatures would have to be "a creature" that will also have to reward the other creatures for their teeth by putting money under their pillows when they are asleep, and locked away in their houses. This creature would have to be able to enter any house (and know which house to go to thousands of times in a single night, every night) and obviously would need use magic or good burgling skills to access the houses because they would not have keys. The creature would have to do all of that, to be a fair comparison to our fictional tooth fairy. So yes, let's suppose that. Yeah?

Actually, fuck no. Let's not. Come up with something better please.

I forget who said it, but the phrase "in an infinite universe, everything is possible" comes to mind.

1 But it also doesn't mean all that is possible will happen, even in infinity. I get it the point of the statement, but its not a strong enough statement for me.

2 Also, we can't be sure that the universe is infinite in size or that it will last for infinite time. We can't realistically use your quoted statement, for those 2 points.

Fact is, you don't know whether tooth fairies exist somewhere in the universe or not.

Oh it's a fact is it? First of all, the tooth fairy is an earthly fictional character, that resides on earth, and we know this. You've just added the "somewhere in the universe bit" to give yourself better odds. But as the fictional tooth fairy lives on earth, I can't see how "tooth fairies may exist in the universe" is even relevant.

If we are still going to press the point "we don't know that we won't find one in another part of the universe (ignoring the obvious logistical difficulty)" then that completely takes the context in a different direction and we are not arguing my original point. Even so, IF you found a tooth fairy like creature, and let's say that cos the universe is a big place, you even found one that did the same things and had the same attributes including magic (just for a laugh), in fact if it did everything that I said in my quote further up - it still isn't the tooth fairy. It is something else. Somewhere else

Now I never said "something else" isn't possible in the universe.

Good luck in finding that something else, but when you do, realise that the tooth fairy is me and millions of other parents sneaking into my/our childrens bedroom at night and putting money under the pillow. But we're still here playing that fictional character every night - what you've found over there, light years away, is not the same, it's unconnected. It's not the real tooth fairy. The tooth fairy cannot be discovered as real. Your creature might be a "blib blob" or something.

You think you know, but you are deluding yourself.

OK, let's conclude...

1 I say -The tooth fairy is a fictional character that is accepted to have no basis in reality, and we teach our kids the myth, for fun, knowing completely that we are acting out fantasy. This fictional character is also based on earth and interacts with our earthling kids with magic. It IS made up, not real, a fictional earth character. Fiction. The fictional tooth fairy that we act out, cannot ever be real.

2 You posit, using the apparantly impregnable shield of philosophy (which from now on I call philosobabble, and want no part of - I'm turned off philosophy now), that just because something is fictional, it doesn't mean it is not possible it won't be proven real, and then later add "somewhere else in the universe"

Lets condense it to the base points...

1 I say the tooth fairy is a fictional character, end of story (story? pardon the pun)

2 You say that it could be real

3 This makes me deluded.

The defence case is rested.

---

I'm pretty sure (but not 100% sure) that tooth-fairies are a man-made concept.

But still, in a world with so many possibilities, there may exist tooth fairies somewhere in the universe which can coincidentally match with the concept of tooth fairies even if someone made it up. Also, maybe there is even a planet where these little creatures fly into homes and then they put a dollar bill under the pillows in exchange for the alien's fallen tooth.

It still doesn't make them the tooth fairy. They are other things, not that I think that even those things would be even likely anyhow.