[split] Agnostic atheism is the only intellectually honest position

[theVOID]

No void, you implied that he implied it.

I didn't imply anything, i said it directly...

[Scented Nectar]

I think the above paragraph applies even more to the idea of god/God/ or gods.

People may find dictionary quoting irritating, but when it is definitions themselves that are being discussed, they really are the best way to go. I don't want to go on and on though defending why I think a collection of a few good dictionaries and Wiki thrown in for good measure are a pretty good source for unbiased, gathered/collected definitions.

I agree with Void; you can't argue against a dictionary meaning and expect it to apply to the general idea of god/God/or gods. The goalposts will shift and theists will alter their definition of the ontology of god/God/ or gods.

I don't expect it to apply to goalpost movers. I'm not even trying to apply it to vague made up stuff. Ignore button in my head is on for those cases, and there will be many. If I were to argue with them, I would say 'you are worshipping something, but it is not a god', unless of course the thing worshipped has also been assigned god traits by them, the traits being any of those god is defined as having in the dictionaries.

Burn straw men if you must, and you will probably impress more than a few simple-minded atheists; but the fact remains that the sweet smell of a god concept destroyed, is simply the smell of the opium burning in the pipe you are smoking.

I'm not out to impress, not even people who think strong atheism is simpleminded. It's purely the result of people not believing me when I tell them where I am on the atheism scale. As for destroying the god concept, maybe you meant belief rather than concept, since I don't disbelieve in concepts? There is no 'sweet smell of a god' belief in me to destroy. I never had it in the first place. I'm starting to wonder if that might be the reason I don't need to put a just-in-case disclaimer on my belief. Maybe. Is that why people seem all defensive or something? It just seems like people are too quick to tack on a 'but there's a tiny chance I could be wrong' to this one when they wouldn't do that to anything else.

Do you 'weak' atheists out there have anything at all (non supernatural stuff) that you are comfortable in your disbelief with to the point where you can positively assert your disbelief in it? Do you add disclaimers onto anything else? I'm not questioning the weakness of your belief, just whether you equally do that for everything else too.

---

I like your confidence Scented Nectar but disagree with you using secular dictionaries as a source for the definition of God. I don't find those accurate at all. To address theists you need to speak the same language... which is philosophy and theology.

The only possible way is to use objectively gathered defs. The alternative would limit it to only one person's version of a god.

[Rhizomorph13]

...sweet smell of a god concept destroyed, is simply the smell of the opium burning in the pipe you are smoking.

Here I am speaking of your assault on the god concept. The concept destroyed would be theirs, and the imagined destruction would come from your efforts.

Do you 'weak' atheists out there have anything at all (non supernatural stuff) that you are comfortable in your disbelief with to the point where you can positively assert your disbelief in it?

Good question; I strongly assert my disbelief, I cannot state the sentence, and positive claim, "There is no god." Were I to do that, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that there is no god. I simply reject the claim that there is a god. No disclaimer required.

Do you add disclaimers onto anything else?

Read above; no disclaimer required. You do not have to assert that there is no god to hold no belief in god. Much like I do not believe in unicorns. I am not an aunicornist nor do I need to study unicornology to refute any claims that unicorns exist. If anyone asserts that unicorns DO exist the burden of proof lies with them.

Rhizo

[Scented Nectar]

Here I am speaking of your assault on the god concept. The concept destroyed would be theirs, and the imagined destruction would come from your efforts.

Are you referring to the sandwich worshippers realization that what they are worshipping does not fit the definition of a god, but some other woo instead and therefore their concept is destroyed? I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Do you 'weak' atheists out there have anything at all (non supernatural stuff) that you are comfortable in your disbelief with to the point where you can positively assert your disbelief in it?

Good question; I strongly assert my disbelief, I cannot state the sentence, and positive claim, "There is no god." Were I to do that, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that there is no god. I simply reject the claim that there is a god. No disclaimer required.

What else do you disbelieve in? Would you refuse to positively assert all other things you disbelieve in? That's what I don't get. I don't see people calling themselves a soft, weak, passive, agnostic anything else. Then again, maybe people are doing that and I've only been seeing it here. I'm not sure about it, so I guess I'm quite agnostic on that one!

[SleepingDemon]

This isn't true. No one can say that unicorns, dragons, fairies, ogres, werewolves, nymphs, minotaurs or griffins do not and have never existed, but if you believe in any of these things, then you're seeing evidence where there is none, same with theists. So applying this same mindset to the "possible" impossibilities like any single one of the thousands of gods that mankind has believed in over the course of history gives me and everyone who vehemently believes that none of them ever existed to begin with is a perfectly logical conclusion. Personally I find agnosticism to be more of an unwilling compromise than an actual position. Theists believe gods do exist, atheists do not, agnostics do not decide anything.

I do not ride the fence so to speak on any of the mythological creatures listed above, and I don't feel the slightest bit of doubt concerning them. All of those creatures are "possible" in one form or another if you allow yourself to step outside the boundaries of everything we know about how biology actually works on this planet. All of the gods are certainly "possible" in one form or another if you allow yourself to step outside the boundaries of everything we know about biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, astrophysics, history, and the scientific process. Agnostic atheism is the best passive aggressive position, but not the only intelligent one.

[theVOID]

Do you 'weak' atheists out there have anything at all (non supernatural stuff) that you are comfortable in your disbelief with to the point where you can positively assert your disbelief in it?

Yes, homeopathy. It is falsifiable and has been utterly falsified. You can even mathematically define the expectations of homeopathy and then literally prove that it does not exist.

There are other examples too, but until i have a specific reason to disbelieve my reasons for ridicule are not based on the untruth of the belief, but on the irrationality of believing something without sufficient evidence.

[Tiberius]

You mentioned earlier about disproving god. While there is that whole technical can't prove a negative thing, I think there are still enough indicators, supporting evidence etc. to more than fully be evidential to my personal satisfaction. As far as one can possibly go with a negative. While what I consider indicators/supporting evidence are debatable from other people's point of view regarding what they would accept, it certainly qualifies me for the 'strong' atheist club.

The "can't prove a negative" is a fallacy. Of course you can prove a negative; quite easily in fact, by pointing out a contradiction. For instance, you can easily prove that there are no square circles, since squares have 4 sides and circles have 1.

The problems with Gods in general is that the definitions are vague and don't contain contradictions. Specific Gods certainly might, but the whole "god" concept is one which is logically valid.

[Scented Nectar]

The "can't prove a negative" is a fallacy. Of course you can prove a negative; quite easily in fact, by pointing out a contradiction. For instance, you can easily prove that there are no square circles, since squares have 4 sides and circles have 1.

I think I can do that with the various accepted definitions of god.

The problems with Gods in general is that the definitions are vague and don't contain contradictions. Specific Gods certainly might, but the whole "god" concept is one which is logically valid.

The concept's definitions are quite clear. Where are you seeing definitions that do not contain contradictions or other logical impossibilities? The only ones I'm seeing that are too vague, are the made up ones that don't have any actual god traits to them. Reverence and religious type emotions may be involved, but it is not a god they are believing in.

Even the vaguest of dictionary defs, MW's "infinite Mind" has not only a ton of the usual unprovabilities, but a logical contradiction/impossibility: Here's some of the unprovables (not that they are really needed for this, but I felt like including my side thoughts) followed by the logical problem. How could it ever be proven to me that some mind is encompassing EVERYTHING? For instance, let's say it turned out conclusively that our universe was merely a part of a large mind. How could I consider this to be infinite? Maybe there are others like it. Maybe there are also minds larger than it too just like it was larger than us. How would I even know that it reaches infinity? I wouldn't recognise infinity if I were staring it in the face. But it doesn't stop at just infinity questions. They only show its unprovability.

The fullblown impossibility comes into play with it being a mind that is infinite. Since that mind has never reached as far as including me, it is at the least not infinite spacially or timewise. It would be everywhere&always if it were. And before anyone says well, maybe it's just not letting you know it's there, I say: Then it's not being infinite, just saying that it could be if it wanted to. If I were to say that I could get pregnant if I wanted to, does that mean I AM pregnant? If a mind were infinite, I would BE that mind.

[Zen Badger]

The main difference is that no-one goes around maintaining that unicorns etc are real,

so so we as atheist/agnostics don't need to demand proof that they are.

Since theists are maintaining that their sky daddy is real, I at least feel the intellectual requirement to demand reasonable evidence to go with this claim.

Also, whilst we cannot conclusively disprove the existence of a higher purpose to the universe.

We can(and have repeatedly) however, disprove the existence of the gods of abraham

[Tiberius]

Even the vaguest of dictionary defs, MW's "infinite Mind" has not only a ton of the usual unprovabilities, but a logical contradiction/impossibility: Here's some of the unprovables (not that they are really needed for this, but I felt like including my side thoughts) followed by the logical problem. How could it ever be proven to me that some mind is encompassing EVERYTHING? For instance, let's say it turned out conclusively that our universe was merely a part of a large mind. How could I consider this to be infinite? Maybe there are others like it. Maybe there are also minds larger than it too just like it was larger than us. How would I even know that it reaches infinity? I wouldn't recognise infinity if I were staring it in the face. But it doesn't stop at just infinity questions. They only show its unprovability.

"Unprovability" points towards agnosticism; it doesn't help gnosticism at all.

The fullblown impossibility comes into play with it being a mind that is infinite. Since that mind has never reached as far as including me, it is at the least not infinite spacially or timewise. It would be everywhere&always if it were. And before anyone says well, maybe it's just not letting you know it's there, I say: Then it's not being infinite, just saying that it could be if it wanted to. If I were to say that I could get pregnant if I wanted to, does that mean I AM pregnant? If a mind were infinite, I would BE that mind.

Yet the definition is vague; it does not say what kind of mind, just that it is infinite. If it were a human mind, that existed in our dimension of space, then yes, it would be impossible. However if this mind operates at a higher dimension, it can still be infinite without interfering with lower dimensions. Space/time is a description of the dimensions that we live in and comprehend, and you cannot rule out the existence of other dimensions where the so-called "infinite mind" might reside.

A 1D line can be infinite, yet it takes up an infinitesimal region of infinite 2D area, and that 2D area takes up an infinitesimal region of 3D space, and that infinite 3D space...etc. This is the thing about infinity; it isn't a number, it's a concept that is applied differently depending on the context you are talking about.

So I'm afraid I don't think your argument works against infinite minds.