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.