Your stance on Hard Atheism

[LastPoet]

Only atheists do this, and they/we only do it when confronted with a god claim. I wonder why.....

It pisses off the religionist freaks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We are explicitly giving special credit to the specific idea a god exists when we say we are agnostic. And I think thats a stupid thing to do.

Maybe you are. I do not.

I use agnostic in the etymological sense of the term, meaning that I do not know. That is clearly not giving credit to the idea that god(s) exist(s).

Gnosis refers to knowledge, "theist" refers to god-belief, and the two ought not be conflated.

I do not know that no god exists. I have seen no evidence for one, and based upon that, I do not believe one exists. That is certainly not giving credence to the idea that god exists. It is doing exactly the opposite, without making the illogical leap of claiming that god certainly doesn't exist.

It's a minor distinction that only becomes relevant when the terms are erroneously conflated.

[Bibliofagus]

We are explicitly giving special credit to the specific idea a god exists when we say we are agnostic. And I think thats a stupid thing to do.

Maybe you are. I do not.

I use agnostic in the etymological sense of the term, meaning that I do not know. That is clearly not giving credit to the idea that god(s) exist(s).

Gnosis refers to knowledge, "theist" refers to god-belief, and the two ought not be conflated.

That's the thing. Ever heard anyone claim he's an agnostic regarding anything other than the existence of god? I think I haven't, and certainly not in the numbers we atheists do it. Does agnostic really mean 'i'm not sure about anything really' while in practice it is only used to describe a position of knowledge of the very specific claim a god exists?

Sure: It's intellectually honest to claim agnosticism. When pressed for answers on specific questions on the subject I fall in the category of agnostic atheist myself. But I don't label myself that way up front. Just like I don't label myself agnostic on other stuff I 'only' have as much knowledge about to consistently act in my or my loved ones best interests.

I do not know that no god exists.

I don't know if we are or are not brains in vats, being cruelly tricked into thinking 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yet whenever anyone asks me how much is 2 plus 2, I never say 'well i'm an agnostic mathmatitionist but I believe the answer is 4'.

I have seen no evidence for one, and based upon that, I do not believe one exists. That is certainly not giving credence to the idea that god exists. It is doing exactly the opposite, without making the illogical leap of claiming that god certainly doesn't exist.

There's a third option however: treating the evidenceless claims of god just the same as all other evidenceless claims. It's Hitchens razor really.

---

Only atheists do this, and they/we only do it when confronted with a god claim. I wonder why.....

It pisses off the religionist freaks.

Does it? How does that work? (I'm serious)

[fr0d0]

10 is indeed a significant number

A significant number of what? People who are 'hard atheists' or people who don't think 'hard atheism' is irrational? Do you think there is 100% overlap in those two groups? Not everyone who disagrees with me is being irrational. It's not a given that if you reach a different conclusion from mine, that it is an irrational conclusion.

---

That would be true if the op hadn't clearly defined gnostic atheism as opposed to anti theism. One up to you for ignorance about the thread

The OP did clearly defined the term as gnostic atheism, and then pretty much continually used it as a synonym for anti-theism in practice.

People who don't think hard atheism is irrational. To think that is to align with hard atheism. You can't agree with that and not be a gnostic atheist. Even though I'm fascinated with the stance, I am in no doubt that it's irrational.

Ah OK.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's the thing. Ever heard anyone claim he's an agnostic regarding anything other than the existence of god? I think I haven't, and certainly not in the numbers we atheists do it. Does agnostic really mean 'i'm not sure about anything really' while in practice it is only used to describe a position of knowledge of the very specific claim a god exists?

I have. I've heard it used in the global warming debate ("I'm an agnostic about whether it's man-made").

Sure: It's intellectually honest to claim agnosticism. When pressed for answers on specific questions on the subject I fall in the category of agnostic atheist myself. But I don't label myself that way up front. Just like I don't label myself agnostic on other stuff I 'only' have as much knowledge about to consistently act in my or my loved ones best interests.

On an atheist forum, "agnostic" is a useful modifier insofar as it spells out a specific position.

I don't own any "agnostic atheist" T-shirts or anything like that (indeed, I don't own any atheist-related apparel or other things -- no Darwinfish on my truck, none of that).

I describe myself as "agnostic atheist" when discussing the matter. I don't, however, make it a part of my personal identity; construing as much would not be accurate.

I don't know if we are or are not brains in vats, being cruelly tricked into thinking 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yet whenever anyone asks me how much is 2 plus 2, I never say 'well i'm an agnostic mathmatitionist but I believe the answer is 4'.

Of course not. Mathematics is an abstraction ("2+2=4" could just as aptly be reworded "yellow plus blue equals green", because the applied values are abstract), whereas a claim of a god's existence implies that there might be a physical expression of the same. And that means that in order for me to say positively that there is not a god, I have to be able to physically exclude it. (We'll ignore for the time the point that "god" has such a nebulous definition that people could very easily talk past each other).

It is not a distinction I make in the non-atheist-forum world, because in the real world, it's a trivial distinction. But in the atheist-forum world, it spells out a specific position, and that is useful, especially when dealing with religionists who are all to happy to impute fallacies in their haste to erect strawmen.

There's a third option however: treating the evidenceless claims of god just the same as all other evidenceless claims. It's Hitchens razor really.

Which is exactly what the agnostic atheist does, when you think about it: "I see no evidence for the claim, therefore I see no reason to believe it."

But for those religionists who wish to stuff words in my mouth, I add the extra adjective in order to ensure no misunderstanding. It's pretty simple, really.

[Mister Agenda]

Only atheists do this, and they/we only do it when confronted with a god claim. I wonder why. We are explicitly giving special credit to the specific idea a god exists when we say we are agnostic. And I think thats a stupid thing to do.

It's not special credit that we're giving. People just never ask if leprechauns are logically conceivable or how we know there are no magical flying unicorns.

There are plenty of people who DO ask questions like that about Bigfoot, ghosts, and alien abductions, though. And the same people who are careful how they answer questions about gods or God tend to be careful about how they answer those questions as well. It's not an atheist trait, it's a trait of rational skeptics.

---

That's the thing. Ever heard anyone claim he's an agnostic regarding anything other than the existence of god?

I certainly have. Personally I am agnostic about many things, It's just that the word has a specific religious connotation that makes it simpler to say (for ease of communication) 'I don't know' in most similar cases. I don't know if any of the current proposals for the origin of the universe are accurate. I can as easily say I'm agnostic about it.

I think I haven't, and certainly not in the numbers we atheists do it.

What do you think the significance of using the phrase 'I don't know' instead of 'I'm agnostic about that' is? Do you think atheists say they're agnostic more than agnostic theists, do?

Does agnostic really mean 'i'm not sure about anything really' while in practice it is only used to describe a position of knowledge of the very specific claim a god exists?

No.

Sure: It's intellectually honest to claim agnosticism.

Is that not a sufficient reason to claim it, then?

When pressed for answers on specific questions on the subject I fall in the category of agnostic atheist myself.

And don't theists often press us for answers on specific question on the subject?

But I don't label myself that way up front.

That's fine for you. Why do you have a problem with me cutting to the chase before the merry-go-round of the theist trying to guesstimate my position?

Just like I don't label myself agnostic on other stuff I 'only' have as much knowledge about to consistently act in my or my loved ones best interests.

That's nice, but in matters of the existence of God or gods, things tend to get epistemological quickly. It's not a practical matter, it's a very hypothetical one. It's philosophy, not grocery shopping.

I don't know if we are or are not brains in vats, being cruelly tricked into thinking 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yet whenever anyone asks me how much is 2 plus 2, I never say 'well i'm an agnostic mathmatitionist but I believe the answer is 4'.

And what do you say to someone who asks you how you know you're not a brain in a jar?

There's a third option however: treating the evidenceless claims of god just the same as all other evidenceless claims. It's Hitchens razor really.

Dismiss them as inadequately supported rather than certainly false?

---

It pisses off the religionist freaks.

Does it? How does that work? (I'm serious)

I suppose they stumble over their misconception that all atheists are certain there is no God.

---

People who don't think hard atheism is irrational. To think that is to align with hard atheism. You can't agree with that and not be a gnostic atheist. Even though I'm fascinated with the stance, I am in no doubt that it's irrational.

Fascinated with the stance of 'hard atheism' or fascinated with the stance that someone can think a position isn't necessarily irrational without automatically agreeing with it?

Ah OK.

That's how it struck me, at any rate. There seemed to be a disconnect between 'hard atheism' is 'gnostic atheism' and all the 'hard atheists do this and say that' stuff.

[Bibliofagus]

That's the thing. Ever heard anyone claim he's an agnostic regarding anything other than the existence of god? I think I haven't, and certainly not in the numbers we atheists do it. Does agnostic really mean 'i'm not sure about anything really' while in practice it is only used to describe a position of knowledge of the very specific claim a god exists?

I have. I've heard it used in the global warming debate ("I'm an agnostic about whether it's man-made").

Interesting. Thank you.
Would you say this helps the position of the people who - do - say it is manmade? Like we atheists do? Let's face it: The consequence of not believing in the god many of our fellow christian po(e)sters claim to have personal experience with - on an atheist discussion forum in particular - means you are saying it is man made. Many of us actually do so in these discussions.

Sure: It's intellectually honest to claim agnosticism. When pressed for answers on specific questions on the subject I fall in the category of agnostic atheist myself. But I don't label myself that way up front. Just like I don't label myself agnostic on other stuff I 'only' have as much knowledge about to consistently act in my or my loved ones best interests.

On an atheist forum, "agnostic" is a useful modifier insofar as it spells out a specific position.

I'm saying it's too goddamn specific. Especially here. To me it's like starting a scientific article on the origins of life with the text: 'well, we can't be sure about anything, after all god or the devil could be tricking us by leaving fake fossils all over the place, but we believe we found out etc.' It's like throwing out 10 miles of line when catching a fish, while you don't really need to.

[fr0d0]

People who don't think hard atheism is irrational. To think that is to align with hard atheism. You can't agree with that and not be a gnostic atheist. Even though I'm fascinated with the stance, I am in no doubt that it's irrational.

Fascinated with the stance of 'hard atheism' or fascinated with the stance that someone can think a position isn't necessarily irrational without automatically agreeing with it?

Fascinated with the stance, and the justification for it. From my understanding of it from those I have encountered so far, I should say, I understand it to be irrational.

Likewise people call my theism irrational, but that is from a position of demonstrable ignorance. What I am ignorant of, I must defer judgement on.

[Bibliofagus]

I don't know if we are or are not brains in vats, being cruelly tricked into thinking 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yet whenever anyone asks me how much is 2 plus 2, I never say 'well i'm an agnostic mathmatitionist but I believe the answer is 4'.

And what do you say to someone who asks you how you know you're not a brain in a jar?

I'd say I don't care and I'm certainly not going to adopt a special label to signify I could know or care. In a way I think the usage of the distinction agnostic/gnostic is - when a applied to reality - a false dichotomy.

I'm a bit swamped now and can't really go into this any further right now, I'm thinking of making a proper thread about this. Would that be interesting?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm saying it's too goddamn specific. Especially here. To me it's like starting a scientific article on the origins of life with the text: 'well, we can't be sure about anything, after all god or the devil could be tricking us by leaving fake fossils all over the place, but we believe we found out etc.'

I'm pretty sure that there are scientific articles on the origin of life that start with something along the lines of 'we can't be certain about exactly how life started'.

---

Fascinated with the stance, and the justification for it. From my understanding of it from those I have encountered so far, I should say, I understand it to be irrational.

Likewise people call my theism irrational, but that is from a position of demonstrable ignorance. What I am ignorant of, I must defer judgement on.

Are you an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist?

---

And what do you say to someone who asks you how you know you're not a brain in a jar?

I'd say I don't care and I'm certainly not going to adopt a special label to signify I do. In a way I think the usage of the distinction agnostic/gnostic is a false dichotomy.

Would you reconsider if you frequented a forum where the possibility of our being brains in jars is one of the main topics of discussion? I think I might like a special label that shorthands my position in that situation if it was me.

I'm a bit swamped now and can't really go into this any further right now, I'm thinking of making a proper thread about this. Would that be interesting?

A new thread would probably be both interesting and painful, judging from similar threads in the past, but I'm game. You've got nothing but my respect, btw, despite your irritation with how I label my position.