[split] Agnostic atheism is the only intellectually honest position

[lrh9]

Atheists dogmatically insisting that assertions of the existence of deities cannot be disproved.

Quite dismaying.

[theVOID]

Atheists dogmatically insisting that assertions of the existence of deities cannot be disproved.

Quite dismaying.

Are you claiming that you can disprove them?

[Facejacker]

Irh9 is not making any claims.

[theVOID]

No, but he implied it.

You wouldn't have such a problem with the idea that all deities cannot be disproved unless you believed otherwise. Yet i don't see him attempting to refute the position.

[Scented Nectar]

Scented - I don't really seeing the point in debunking the validity of dictionary defined gods, anyone who believes in the God will say "Webster does not define my beliefs" which is a perfectly valid objection to your work.

I'm not even going to visit the patch of crazy land where people call things god that do not fit any accepted god def, and/or are things that already have other names, eg, the universe. I've actually had people tell me that a sandwich in their fridge is god. Seriously. I'm not going there.

All you are really going to achieve by this is spending a lot of time impressing nobody but yourself.

I don't care about that too much. This youtube is one I've been thinking of doing for a while now, only because so many people tell me that no one can really be a strong atheist. However, I fully fit the definition on the Dawkins scale, as well as the definitions that were coined by a couple other people for strong, positive, gnostic etc atheism. I just want to show people that I am indeed one. This has almost nothing to do with which position might be the better one. I don't like that you are calling it dishonest. Call it incorrect or impossible or whatever else, but that word sounds as though I'm in some sort of denial or even outright lying. It has a bit of an insulting sound (even though my skin is pretty tough). I guess I just wouldn't be too comfortable with a show that assumed right from the start that there is something dishonestly wrong with strong atheism. A debate/discussion about it would be a good place to bring up opinions on it, but to start the show with a conclusion that too strong an atheistic belief is wrong bugs me.

Do weak atheists even have a percentage number for the credibility they are giving the existence of gods for them to be telling me that I should believe it even that much? Why do 'weak' atheists not qualify EVERYTHING with the agnostic label, eg: "I'm not saying that I have 5 digits on my left hand at the moment, I just lack a belief that there are a different number of them." Is there a chance that you have more fingers that are invisible and magic? Until something with so many strong indicators against it, has at least some indicator, some slight partial evidence FOR it, wouldn't it be silly to give it a lip service of credibility? Do you really wonder a tiny bit whether there might be a chance you have more than 5 digits due to supernatural causes (the 'magic' I mentioned above)?

Maybe a lot of ex-believing atheists really do wonder still a little bit. Is that why this happens so much? In my case, I never believed at all. As a little kid, I argued against it when the concept was presented to me as true rather than the fairy tale it obviously was. They couldn't answer the logical problems regarding the version of god they were feeding me, so I was never a believer. I have no nagging just in case ruminations in my head.

Note that any mention of the word supernatural (as is mentioned in some defs of god) is one of those logical impossibilities, for as soon as something has manifested or affected things, I consider it to be part of 'nature' or 'natural laws' etc, so the supernatural cannot ever exists. As soon as it does, I no longer consider it to be supernatural, just something I don't understand the workings of. I could never be made to believe anything is actually supernatural for that reason. What reason could convince me to consider something as being 'outside' of nature when it's 'inside' of nature by its very existence?

Also, to say that the basis of your atheism is the fact that dictionary defined gods are logically contradictory seems a rather weak standpoint.

To accept made up definitions would be the weak and pointless method. The dictionaries have some pretty good definitions of things. If someone were to claim to be an a-gravity-ist, would you not expect them to disbelieve in the dictionary def of gravity? Otherwise they could say that gravity is really peanut butter or anything at all. At some point one has to stick with dictionary defs. The ones for gods, worship, supernatural, etc. have been refined and expanded on over years and years. If anyone wants to argue that I should be including made up shit just because occassional weirdoes worship sandwiches and call it god, then they have lost the argument in my opinion, or maybe haven't even presented one would be more accurate.

So, yeah, I'm sticking with the dictionaries and avoiding how god is the nice feeling someone gets when a birdie chirp brings a tear to their eyes. It looks like people, both atheists and sandwich/atombomb worshippers alike won't like this, but oh well.

[lrh9]

Kudos. I was surprised when you expressed some ideas that I hold in common.

[Facejacker]

No void, you implied that he implied it.

[Scented Nectar]

Kudos. I was surprised when you expressed some ideas that I hold in common.

Uh oh, if something that impossible can happen, maybe I should reconsider deities!

You mentioned earlier about disproving god. While there is that whole technical can't prove a negative thing, I think there are still enough indicators, supporting evidence etc. to more than fully be evidential to my personal satisfaction. As far as one can possibly go with a negative. While what I consider indicators/supporting evidence are debatable from other people's point of view regarding what they would accept, it certainly qualifies me for the 'strong' atheist club.

[Rhizomorph13]

Hey SN,

Here is an interesting site I found about the proper use of dictionaries:

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adlerdictionary.htm

There is no more irritating fellow than the man(sic) who tries to settle an argument about communism, or justice, or liberty, by quoting from Webster. Webster and all his fellow lexicographers may be respected as authorities on word-usage, but they are not the ultimate founts of wisdom. They are no Supreme Court to which we can appeal for a decision of those fundamental controversies which, despite the warnings of semanticists, get us involved with abstract words. It is well to remember that the dictionary's authority can, for obvious reasons, be surer in the field of concrete words, and even in the field of the abstract technical words of science, than it ever can be with respect to philosophical words. Yet these words are indispensable if we are going to talk, read, or write about the things that matter most.

I think the above paragraph applies even more to the idea of god/God/ or gods.

In short, don't forget that the dictionary is a book about words, not about things. It can tell you how men(sic) have used words, but it does not define the nature of the things the words name.

(bolding mine)

I agree with Void; you can't argue against a dictionary meaning and expect it to apply to the general idea of god/God/or gods. The goalposts will shift and theists will alter their definition of the ontology of god/God/ or gods. Burn straw men if you must, and you will probably impress more than a few simple-minded atheists; but the fact remains that the sweet smell of a god concept destroyed, is simply the smell of the opium burning in the pipe you are smoking.


Rhizo

[fr0d0]

I like your confidence Scented Nectar but disagree with you using secular dictionaries as a source for the definition of God. I don't find those accurate at all. To address theists you need to speak the same language... which is philosophy and theology.