Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[Perhaps]

Again, god as a word game. Nothing wrong with that, god always is a word game. This one is just more transparent than the others.

Very true. Perception is a very intriguing thing when analyzed, as is opinion. Anyway, thank you for the discussion, it was much appreciated.

[Darwinning]

Logically speaking, I think the only tenable position is that of the Agnostic Atheist; for reasons already expanded on in this thread. God most probably does not exist, but by nature of the proposition cannot be proven to not exist.

However, I feel the use of the word "Agnostic" in this context lends too much credibility to the extremely improbable possibility that God does exist.

The word "agnostic" comes first and even has more letters than the word "atheist", suggesting that it is important. But to me, the "knowing that one cannot know" is self-evident, it is hardly worth spelling out.

Even worse, putting doubt (agnostic) before denial of existence (atheist) seems to suggest that one seriously entertains the idea that God might indeed exist. For me, that is not the case. I am as certain as I can be that he does not, but logic forces me to concede there are limits to my knowledge.

When asked, I will therefore say I am an Atheist - even though that is not strictly true - in the same way that I would state my age rounded down to whole years without adding the number of days, hours and seconds I have been alive.

I guess that makes me a six pretending to be a seven.

[Whateverist]

Logically speaking, I think the only tenable position is that of the Agnostic Atheist; for reasons already expanded on in this thread. God most probably does not exist, but by nature of the proposition cannot be proven to not exist.

However, I feel the use of the word "Agnostic" in this context lends too much credibility to the extremely improbable possibility that God does exist.

The word "agnostic" comes first and even has more letters than the word "atheist", suggesting that it is important. But to me, the "knowing that one cannot know" is self-evident, it is hardly worth spelling out.

Even worse, putting doubt (agnostic) before denial of existence (atheist) seems to suggest that one seriously entertains the idea that God might indeed exist. For me, that is not the case. I am as certain as I can be that he does not, but logic forces me to concede there are limits to my knowledge.

When asked, I will therefore say I am an Atheist - even though that is not strictly true - in the same way that I would state my age rounded down to whole years without adding the number of days, hours and seconds I have been alive.

I guess that makes me a six pretending to be a seven.

Very reasonable of you. Asked if I believe in god the answer is always just no. Not agnostic. Pure "without-theism" baby. If asked if I know for sure there is no god I will admit to agnosticism.

[imperfectus]

I am what you consider a gnostic or strong atheist, in that I know god/s do not exist. Because the existence of any kind of deity can be tested scientifically (god hypothesis) and that hypothesis would be rejected. I came to this position after reading Victor Stenger (In particular his book God The Failed Hypothesis). A book which in my opinion is much superior than The God Delusion.

I dont knock those who are agnostic atheists, however I just go a little step further that is all.

Exactly. Many atheists are frightened to claim to "know" there is no god, even though it's absolutely obvious there is no god. They'd rather err on the side of caution so they have the upper hand in debate, and some maybe genuinely can't be sure and won't commit to sureity based on scientific principle, which is understandable.

However, the way I look at it, is if theists can know god exists then atheists can take the contrary position and know no god, and at least the atheist has a valid reason to claim to know there is no god - NO EVIDENCE = NO GOD!

The problem with that stance is simply that you are requiring an article of faith -- one huge fatal flaw in the logic of the believer.

[Jackalope]

The problem with that stance is simply that you are requiring an article of faith -- one huge fatal flaw in the logic of the believer.

This is precisely why I make no such claim about the existence of deities, fairies, unicorns, sasquatch or other mythical creatures.

[The Grand Nudger]

On the subject of not being able to know, or making no claims-

No worries, I'll handle the making claims bit all day long. Mythical creatures do not exist for various reasons that can be handled individually. The "god" that can't be known, yay or nay, is not any god described in the major religious traditions of today or any other point in history. Those were all testable propositions. Yahweh is the god of eden , the flood, and exodus. The stories describe events which did not occur and attribute them to a being that does not exist. Rinse and repeat with any god you like. Give a god formulated specifically for an argument any sort of pass you want. We cannot know about gods that are indistinguishable from nature. That has nothing to do with the god being put forward by those who offer this argument as some sort of trojan horse for their fairy. The god's we "cannot know" are only gods by virtue of someone calling them that. Word games.

It's not as though we cannot know whether or not unicorns or sasquatch or fairies or werewolves exist. Each creature has a description which can be assessed on the basis of known fact. Each is non-existent based upon what we know, not what we don't. The same is true for gods. It isn't just a lack of evidence that disqualifies these creatures. It's a lack of evidence for and a mountain of evidence against. One could suggest that we have our facts wrong, fine, lead the way.

[Whateverist]

On the subject of not being able to know, or making no claims-

No worries, I'll handle the making claims bit all day long. Mythical creatures do not exist for various reasons that can be handled individually. The "god" that can't be known, yay or nay, is not any god described in the major religious traditions of today or any other point in history. Those were all testable propositions. Yahweh is the god of eden , the flood, and exodus. The stories describe events which did not occur and attribute them to a being that does not exist.

Well if they're read as historical fact then you can definitely make a good argument against all this stuff. If the purpose of the stories is allegorical, then that would be beside the point.

It's not as though we cannot know whether or not unicorns or sasquatch or fairies or werewolves exist. Each creature has a description which can be assessed on the basis of known fact. Each is non-existent based upon what we know, not what we don't.

I don't think any magical creatures exist but I'm not going to waste my precious time trying to convince anyone of it. It is far too hard to demonstrate a negative, and if your audience believes the magic beasty is real then it will be impossible to sway them. Rationality only has the power we give it. Where it is withheld it won't work.

The same is true for gods. It isn't just a lack of evidence that disqualifies these creatures. It's a lack of evidence for and a mountain of evidence against. One could suggest that we have our facts wrong, fine, lead the way.

There is a lot of that (having our facts wrong) going around. I suspect we are actually constituted of two seats of consciousness. People like to say conscious and unconscious, but that is a little one sided in my opinion. Looked at another way, there is just the seat of consciousness in which we sit (seat one) and then there is the other seat of consciousness (seat two) which is embodied in our one body and interacts with the world for its preservation and god only knows what else. Seat two is qualitatively different from seat one but has evolved along side it to allow us to focus one particular tasks from seat one while remaining vigilant from seat two for threats and opportunities arising in the wider environment, the "big picture". It is the division of the brain into two hemispheres which makes this possible and it is an adaptive advantage that many creatures including at lest all birds and mammals share with us. The two hemispheres are linked but also separated by the corpus callosum, which is smaller in proportion to the mass of the brain in humans than in any other creature. It used to be thought that language and reasoning was completely contained on the left side which houses our seat of consciousness but that is no longer true. [For more information on the latest thinking on all this see the T.E.D. talk by Ian McGilchrist at http://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchris...brain.html ]

I suspect it is the essential otherness of this other seat of consciousness which provides the experiences which lead people to suspect a 'higher consciousness' or to experience a god 'moving in their lives'. Now if theists are able to effectively relate to their second seat of consciousness by way of a Christian overlay, where is the harm? I might feel more in common with them if they didn't, but I can't fault them for going with what works for them.

If this is an important component of the god-experience, then arguing against mythological stories really is pointless, except for those of us who are adverse to delusion.