Why Agnostic?

[Tsuyoiko]

On Tiberius's scale of belief I rank 7, Strong Gnostic Atheist.

My reasoning is like this:

I'm certain that god doesn't exist. Since I make that claim, I know that the burden of proof lies with me: I need to prove that god doesn't exist.

The first step in a proof is to define the premises. So the first thing I need to do is to define god. As soon as I try to do that I find it impossible to come up with a coherent definition. If it's impossible to define "god" coherently, then the concept must be incoherent. If the concept is incoherent, then it can't exist.

I have neglected to explain why I can't come up with a coherent definition because it gets long-winded, but I will attempt to do so if it helps.

What I'm interested in is why there are so many agnostic atheists.

I can see two possible reasons why my fellow atheists might not go so far as to claim certainty:

-There may be some error in my reasoning above; I'd welcome any suggestions as to where I went wrong.
-By making no claim to certainty one avoids the burden of proof

[Darwinian]

On Tiberius's scale of belief I rank 7, Strong Gnostic Atheist.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Richard Dawkins got there first

[Eilonnwy]

Because maybe some atheists recognize the limits of their knowledge.

I would go so far as to assert there is no personal god. However, I remain agnostic about a deistic god. The idea that a god created everything and then is hands off and unconcerned with our lives is a hypothesis that isn't very testable, at least not now. So, that means I believe the idea of a personal god (Answers prayers, does miracles, sent down his son, etc...) is testable and we can form a good argument to prove the premise that no personal god exists.

It's really about intellectual honesty. I don't believe absolute knowledge exists so I like to recognize that I can't know everything, so to the best of my current knowledge I can assert there is no personal god and I have to remain agnostic about the deistic one.

What's interesting to see, is when theists argue to death a deistic god and then make a leap to the personal one.

[Tsuyoiko]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Richard Dawkins got there first

I think Richard Dawkins rates 6. He usually says "there is almost certainly no god", such as in this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-da...32164.html

Because maybe some atheists recognize the limits of their knowledge.

I think one can claim that the concept of god is incoherent without claiming all knowledge.

[Eilonnwy]

I don't think you can and I think it's dishonest to say you can. It really depends on the concept of god and there are many concepts. If there concept of god is just a first cause, a creative energy that started the universe, I don't think we can conclusively disprove that concept the way we can with a personal god. We can promote alternate theories, but as it stands the origin of the universe beyond the big bang is largely unknown and I'm willing to admit and recognize it. Granted, not knowing what caused the universe to exist does not automatically mean god did it, which is why I do not bother believing in a deistic god.

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't think you can and I think it's dishonest to say you can. It really depends on the concept of god and there are many concepts. If there concept of god is just a first cause, a creative energy that started the universe, I don't think we can conclusively disprove that concept the way we can with a personal god.

I take your point. I think you're saying that in order to claim that the concept is incoherent I would need to examine every possible concept, and in order to do that I would require all knowledge?

[Tiberius]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Richard Dawkins got there first

Assuming you are talking about the actual scale, then yes, but his scale is crap, as I outlined in my article: http://atheistblogger.com/2008/12/23/sca...certainty/

Here is Dawkins scale:
1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Dawkins makes butchery of basic terms, which is why I wrote a better one, with proper explanations of my reasoning. For instance, mine does not combine certainty and knowledge within the same attribute, but recognises that one (knowledge) addresses absolute knowledge, and the other (certainty) addresses relative knowledge.

Also, Dawkins erroneously places agnosticism as the mid-point, claiming "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.". Thomas Huxley would turn in his grave if he read that. Agnosticism isn't a question about probability, it is a question about proof. Just as the defining question that separates theists from atheists is "Do you believe?", the question that separates agnostics from gnostics is "Do you think it can be proven?". An agnostic does not hold that existence and non-existence are equiprobable, but that you cannot know (absolutely) that God exists or not. The probability of God's existence might be very high or very low in your opinion, but the agnostic will never say "I know God exists" or "I know God does not exist".

My scale on the other hand, using separate attributes (knowledge, belief, certainty) to create an accurate scale which people can use. The mid-point is one of apatheism, either not caring to believe or disbelieve, or an honest "I have no opinion".

My Scale:

1. Strong Gnostic Theist - Believes in God, holds God as provable (or proven) and is 100% certain about its existence.
2. Strong Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) but is still 100% certain about its existence.
3. Weak Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) and is uncertain about its existence.
4. Apatheist – Could be described as 100% uncertain about their beliefs. Usually agnostic, and with a distinct sense of apathy on forming any opinion on the existence of God.
5. Weak Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is still uncertain about its non-existence.
6. Strong Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is 100% certain about its non-existence.
7. Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

As to the original post:

The first step in a proof is to define the premises. So the first thing I need to do is to define god. As soon as I try to do that I find it impossible to come up with a coherent definition. If it's impossible to define "god" coherently, then the concept must be incoherent. If the concept is incoherent, then it can't exist.

Well done, you just made an atheist's version of the Ontalogical argument, and the original sucked as badly as this one does. You cannot simply define God into existence (or non-existence as you do). The fact that you cannot come up with a coherent definition of God is your problem. It's both an argument from definition and an argument from personal incredulity rolled into one. The fact that there is not a definition for something does not make it untrue, neither does the fact that you are unable to come up with one.

So yes, well done. You have single handedly come up with the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for atheism. I'm sorry if that offends, but seriously: Worst. Argument. Ever.

[Tsuyoiko]

So yes, well done. You have single handedly come up with the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for atheism. I'm sorry if that offends, but seriously: Worst. Argument. Ever.

Thanks. As I said in my original post, I suspected I had made an error in reasoning; you guys have pointed that out to me quite clearly.

It was a comment someone made on a forum that first made me realise that I didn't need god, and now I've realised that I was wrong in claiming the non-existence to be provable.

So I guess I have to recategorise myself as a 6

[Tiberius]

Well at least something good has come out of it.

I felt a bit bad in taking down the argument with such ferocity, but then again, I do hate the Ontological argument...sooo much. That people still manage to think it is a good argument astounds me!

I used to be that way though. I used to think agnosticism was a cop-out, and ironically it was in doing research for an article criticising agnosticism that I finally decided to read Thomas Huxley's essay on it. I was surprised to find that I agreed with every word, and that agnosticism wasn't the problem, but the modern (wrong) interpretation of it was. Hence I changed the focus of my article to the explanation of the misconceptions of agnosticism, and people agreed with it.

[Purple Rabbit]

The first step in a proof is to define the premises. So the first thing I need to do is to define god. As soon as I try to do that I find it impossible to come up with a coherent definition. If it's impossible to define "god" coherently, then the concept must be incoherent. If the concept is incoherent, then it can't exist.

The weakness in your proof is that you presuppose that if god exist it/he/she is definable in terms of human language. It's a rather antropocentric attempt to prove his non-existence.

Oh btw, on the Tiberius scale I cannot be ranked (no problem really, I am used to having no friends in crime) since I don't think the existence of god is unprovable, only unproven. On the Dawkins scale I rank 6.