Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[Captain Scarlet]

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

Hi Leo.

You see I think that is just wrong. Absence of evidence IS indeed evidence of absence. But it is NOT proof of absence. Given the best we can hope to do in all but maths and logic is to know to something to a level of a probability, something which is 99.99999…etc % non-existent, is non-existent.

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.

No and we cannot rule out even the most absurd of propositions, but at what point do you declare that this is just not true? Theism is an absolute (and potentially lethal) truth claim, which I believe is wrong on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Agnostic atheism meets this truth claim with a demand to essentially ‘prove it’, atheism with arguments which seek to disprove it. But none of us would seriously entertain the idea that any of the products of human imagination (inc supernatural agents) are potentially existents. That is where I think atheism is more consistent. Agnostic atheism as you have honestly conceded leaves you having to conclude that nothing can be ruled out.

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

Yes I do and have seen it here, I need to bite the bullet on this one. I think there is a tendency among agnostic atheism to be asymmetric in their treatment of theist claims compared to other extraordinary truth claims, in so doing paying theism too much respect. As mentioned above any products of the human imagination would be ridiculed by agnostic atheists, but we still cannot ‘know’ by the terms drawn by agnostic atheism that they do not exist or are untrue. So to be consistent you must also be agnostic on any products of the human imagination unless and until someone evidences their non existence or untruth wrt reality. Now to be fair Leo I think you have indicated that willingness, but my claim is that you must surrender a little piece of your intellectual honesty to stick to that line (because I don’t believe anyone seriously entertains some of those ideas for a moment).

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.

I do not perceive a difference between atheism and strong atheism, what do you believe it to be?

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.

Yes I think I covered that point around absence of evidence. In this case (and please understand this is not a forensic argument) we have certainly have visited Mount Olympus and found nothing. But there are lots of arguments (which we will come to which would deny most god concepts). Although to be fair to Zeus he probably fitted reality better, than other god concepts.

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.

Again inductively overpowering absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, just not proof. Given that is the best we only ever be able to do I believe it is more consistent to be an atheist rather than an agnostic atheist. In addition it is not just about evidence as we can also reason. Some theists on here would and have argue/d that there is no evidence in the natural world of gods existence, but that gods still exist. We can also reason that gods do / do not exist. Some atheistic arguments clearly take the latter approach.

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.

If something genuinely does not exist, the best we can ever do evidence wise is demonstrate the lack of evidence that support the hypothesis (in this case god). There is of course plenty of evidence to the contrary inc. classical inductive arguments: the inductive problem of evil, the hiddenness of god, the success of natural science, the failure of intercessory prayer, the mind-brain dependence, religious confusion andf geography. There are also non-evidentiary means from non-cognitivism and deductive reasoning.

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

I agree I think you mis-understand my motives. This wasn’t in general or specifically an attack on agnostic atheism, just a comment on my personal adherence to atheism and why I believe it is more consistent.

I think this is a line that is tripped out too often. Atheism fundamentally is a claim. We can trade definitions and understanding on this. But it boils down to the fact that Theism is a claim about reality and the true nature of reality, and atheism is its opposite, however we dress it up. It’s a bit like the word theory in that its common usage, isn’t the one used in science. Atheism in common usage isn’t necessarily the one that philosophers understand. I think it was Bertrand Russell who claimed he was an atheist to the common man, but amongst philosophers was defined as an agnostic.

Define "true"?

Unsure what you are driving at here? Truth = degree of correctness wrt reality

What argument for atheism?

I believe I have already quoted some of those arguments ion this response.

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

No I do not and I have explained why. As an atheist I accept I have to make my case, but as previously stated I am not making the positive claim about reality, it is the theist. All I need to do is offer arguments in support that the opposite is the case, in that the reality is exactly as you would expect if atheism were true. It is a re-iteration of the burden which falls to the theist. Let me crystallize an example and its an important distinction. In the argument from mind-brain dependence the atheist perspective is to simply point out 1) that the theist is committed to substance dualism, 2) substance dualism is false, 3) therefore theism is false. However I would not then need to prove that Monism were true on top of that to complete the argument (ie there is no burden of proof wrt Monism). The same analogy is true of Theism/Atheism.

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.

Yeah, I think this is wrong and that we have danced this dance above, but please come back if you want me to address it.