agnostic atheism is oxymoronic

[fr0d0]

*alive :p

Scroedinger made up the cat in the box example to show the absurdity of the interpretation that it was in both states.

is/isn't alive in the box of course I meant

[Chas]

Scroedinger made up the cat in the box example to show the absurdity of the interpretation that it was in both states.

is/isn't alive in the box of course I meant

And that is what he was mocking.

[fr0d0]

Yes I know

[Whateverist]

And as an agnostic atheist, I lack any sort of belief in any sort of gods due to lack of evidence. I have no positive proof they don't exist, but the lack of any sort of verifiable evidence does the hard work for me.

As an atheist you lack belief in any deity.
As an agnostic you claim not to know.

The lack of proof supports your agnosticism, not your atheism.

You're stating that your atheism rests on your agnosticism. Which is a positive claim of belief: no proof justifies this belief (to you)

Yet as a Christian, I have no positive proof that God exists, the lack of any sort of verifiable evidence doesn't do the hard work for me.

As a Christian I have belief in a deity
As an agnostic I claim not to know

Therefore your automatic conclusion, that deity is falsified by lack of verifiable evidence, must be false.

So you're saying that lack of proof is not proof of absence? Fair enough. Would you say that the point of being a Christian then is instruction in how to stand before the mystery and perhaps in providing a social context for those who wish to share a relationship around this mystery?

If so, then you needn't be concerned that other people subscribe to other traditions which provide other instructions for forming a mystery based shared experience. I wonder if you agree that Christians need not claim exclusivity or supremacy in their particular social formulation? If it provides meaning for you, isn't that enough? I think a world in which all such groups acquire heartfelt respect and tolerance for every cultural formulation which doesn't endanger you or the planet would be a good one.

[fr0d0]

I think a world in which all such groups acquire heartfelt respect and tolerance for every cultural formulation which doesn't endanger you or the planet would be a good one.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. There's a tension because the formulation is quite radical in places, and even though controls are inbuilt, the failures are epic.

[ManMachine]

I think a world in which all such groups acquire heartfelt respect and tolerance for every cultural formulation which doesn't endanger you or the planet would be a good one.

I would suggest we do not know enough about human behaviour to know what would happen to our social structures or cultural formations should we develop such heartfelt respect and tolerance.

Sounds like a recipe for trouble if you ask me. We would be adrift on a sea of unspent libidinal energy. Imagine the mess if that lot goes off!


MM

[Mister Agenda]

That's a claim - not proof.

It's as much proof as there has ever been. If there is a God, then you and everything you experience are proof of his activity. It's not proof because we have an arbitrary selector: "if".

I don't 'claim' that God exists. I believe that God exists.

It's not proof because affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy.

If God, reality.
Reality, therefore God.

This suffers from the exact same problem as:

If I'm Bill Gates, I'm rich.
I'm rich, therefore I'm Bill Gates.

If P, then Q
Q, therefore P

Any time an argument takes this form, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's not a valid syllogism. However, this is:

If P, then Q
P, therefore Q

[smax]

"I do not believe god(s) exist"

"I do not have a belief on the subject of whether or not god(s) exist"

huge difference in these two ideas.

anyone want to discuss?

You got it wrong. It's:

Do you believe in god? No

Do you know for sure that god doesn't exist? No

There is no contradiction here at all. The general position of Atheists is one of humility in accepting that we (human beings) are far too limited to pretend to know more than we possibly could.

With that, Atheists naturally reject the arrogant claims of religion, which is man made, but also accept the very real fact that we (human beings) do not have enough knowledge to conclusively determine that a higher power of some sort does not exist.

[Anomalocaris]

"I do not believe god(s) exist"

"I do not have a belief on the subject of whether or not god(s) exist"

huge difference in these two ideas.

anyone want to discuss?

No, i think it id obvious that the two ideas exists along the same continuum. And each camp really embraces nuances that allow them to overlap considerably, and their adjacent peripheries to grade from one into the other smoothly, almost imperceptibly.

Take for example, an agonistic position of "I have no basis for taking any position at all on whether any god exists" grades smoothly into "I have basis for favoring the nonexistence of all specific gods I've examined, but not enough to categorically deny existence of all gods", which in turn grades smoothly into "I have basis for favoring the catagoric invalidity of the concept of god I've examined, but not to an degree where I would categorically deny the validity of all possible variation this concept", which in turn grades into god by any definition does not exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

"I do not believe god(s) exist"

Which means that you have a belief about the matter, so have assigned a probability under 50% for god's(s')existence.

"I do not have a belief on the subject of whether or not god(s) exist"

Which means that you may not even have heard of the concept of god(s), so not assigned any probability on the matter at all, or you are incapable of doing so e.g: if you are a newborn baby or otherwise not old enough or intelligent enough assign any probability on the matter.

anyone want to discuss?

The answer to neither of these questions imply that agnostic atheism is moronic.