Can you persuade me from Agnostic to Atheist?

[wiploc]

Sure. The entry-level atheist position is "not a theist". Since it's a response to theistic claims of belief in one or more gods, atheism straight out of the box means not accepting those claims prima facie. It's the position of "show me what you got and I'll consider it". As such it carries no burden of proof, as the atheist isn't trying to prove anything. Everything else, from the weak/strong modifiers to the seven-point scale, is an attempt to qualify the degree to which the atheism is applied, and may carry a burden of proof depending on the level of positive claims being made.

Thanks.  I don't agree, but thanks for explaining.

What don't you agree with?

I think I misread your original post: "You do know that the principle atheist position is not that "there is not a god", right?" 

Nonetheless I wouldn't call any atheist position the "principle" atheist position. 

The entry-level atheist position is "not a theist".

That's every position.  It's the whole thing, not some entry level position.  A strong atheist like me (I believe that gods do not exist) meets that definition every bit as much as a weak atheist (one who doesn't believe either that gods do exist or that they don't).  

Since it's a response to theistic claims of belief in one or more gods, atheism straight out of the box means not accepting those claims prima facie.

If we're agreed that everyone who isn't a theist is an atheist, then atheism isn't necessarily a response to theist claims.  Implicit atheists (e.g. babies and wolf boys) aren't responding to anything; they just don't happen to be theists.  

It's the position of "show me what you got and I'll consider it".

I'm a strong atheist, and that's my position.  If theists come up with a persuasive case, I'm willing to switch teams.  I want to go wherever the evidence leads.  

Now consider the so-called "strong agnostics," who often say things like, "I don't know, and you don't know either.  Nobody knows.  Nobody can know.  Nobody will ever know.  Agnosticism is the only reasonable position.  If you are a theist or a strong atheist, you are an idiot."  So some weak atheists aren't open to evidence.  

As such it carries no burden of proof, as the atheist isn't trying to prove anything.

Strong atheists have as much burden of proof as theists.  (Which probably means AgnosticMan is tearing his hair out by now.  )

Everything else, from the weak/strong modifiers to the seven-point scale, is an attempt to qualify the degree to which the atheism is applied,

I think that this, in the face of the rest of your post, is incoherent.  Degrees of not being a theist?

and may carry a burden of proof depending on the level of positive claims being made.

This part I can agree with.  

All of this feels like nit-picking.  I'm answering only because you asked.  I'm not trying to start a dialog on whether the seven point scale is an attempt to qualify the degree to which atheism is applied.
[/quote]

[AkiraTheViking]

We have cake, which is totally not a lie btw. But because we're atheist we can have rum cake on a day you're not supposed to, depending on what cult you belong too.

[Heatheness]

Can anyone here persuade or convert me from being agnostic to being atheist?

Why are you holding on to the possibility?

With no evidence there's just no reason to consider it. Man has been making up myths to explain things that they are too ignorant to understand and too egotistical to admit they don't know since man began. There is tons of evidence for that. There is no evidence for gods. Never has been. No reason to consider it even possible.

[Jehanne]

Can anyone here persuade or convert me from being agnostic to being atheist?

Why are you holding on to the possibility?

With no evidence there's just no reason to consider it. Man has been making up myths to explain things that they are too ignorant to understand and too egotistical to admit they don't know since man began. There is tons of evidence for that. There is no evidence for gods. Never has been. No reason to consider it even possible.

Here's a great video where Craig takes to pin atheism down to strong atheism only and Shermer discusses how man made god and not vice-a-versa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EvwITW-SA

A clear win for Dr. Shermer.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Why are you holding on to the possibility?

With no evidence there's just no reason to consider it. Man has been making up myths to explain things that they are too ignorant to understand and too egotistical to admit they don't know since man began. There is tons of evidence for that. There is no evidence for gods. Never has been. No reason to consider it even possible.

Here's a great video where Craig takes to pin atheism down to strong atheism only and Shermer discusses how man made god and not vice-a-versa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EvwITW-SA

A clear win for Dr. Shermer.

I disagree. I think Dr. Shermer's attempts to stay light-hearted about it allowed Dr. Craig to get away with some pretty preposterous broad statements about the amount of evidence for his claims, which he asserted he had defended successfully at "many universities". I know it wasn't a debate, but I found most of Dr. Shermer's answers to be a bit vague and empty, when I know he is often quite eloquent (in writing) about the problems with Craig's philosophical "proofs" for evidence of a creator. Unfortunately, WLC oozes personality, and to most people listening to that argument, they would care more about how WLC sounds than about the careful application of skepticism shown by Shermer.

Which is, of course, the whole problem in a nutshell.

[Jehanne]

Here's a great video where Craig takes to pin atheism down to strong atheism only and Shermer discusses how man made god and not vice-a-versa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EvwITW-SA

A clear win for Dr. Shermer.

I disagree. I think Dr. Shermer's attempts to stay light-hearted about it allowed Dr. Craig to get away with some pretty preposterous broad statements about the amount of evidence for his claims, which he asserted he had defended successfully at "many universities". I know it wasn't a debate, but I found most of Dr. Shermer's answers to be a bit vague and empty, when I know he is often quite eloquent (in writing) about the problems with Craig's philosophical "proofs" for evidence of a creator. Unfortunately, WLC oozes personality, and to most people listening to that argument, they would care more about how WLC sounds than about the careful application of skepticism shown by Shermer.

Which is, of course, the whole problem in a nutshell.

Yet another reason to NOT trust "eyewitness testimony"!!

[Jenny A]

Can anyone here persuade or convert me from being agnostic to being atheist?

This thread is full of explanations about the category difference between agnostic and atheist. I am an atheist in that I don't believe in any god or gods, or demi gods whatsoever. I am agnostic in that I don't think it is possible to disprove all possibility of all gods. I am gnostic in that I recognize that there is such an overwhelming lack of evidence for god's that it's not a question worth serious consideration.

In the case of the Judeo-christian god, I am a very gnostic atheist. The bible begins with a throughly debunked creation myth and goes on to describe a flood which obviously didn't happen. It follows that up with an account of history similarly at odds with the facts, the flight from Egypt in particular is not possible. This followed by two contradictory stories of the conquering the land of Canan. The NT provides tales of several Jesus's: one who claims to be god and one who doesn't; one who performs miracles make people believe and one who performs them only for belivers. But the Jesus's all claimed that the second coming would be within his generation and it did not come thus complicating theology for ever after. The trinity does not appear until very late; the gospel of John and Paul's letters. So that particular god is nonexistent.

I am gnostic as to a number of other gods, but I suspect the Judeo-christian god is the only one you have ever considered.

[wiploc]

Can anyone here persuade or convert me from being agnostic to being atheist?

I'll try to talk you from weak atheist to strong atheist (from one who doesn't believe either way to one who believes that gods do not exist).

Is that a fair understanding of what you're after? 

I can talk about, for instance,

• Why we know the standard Christian god doesn't exist,
  
• Why any particular theist argument (not including the thing about polonium halos) is garbage,
  
• Why gods generally are tremendously unlikely, or
  
• Why it's fair to believe that theists don't have any reasonable arguments. 
  

But I don't want to write a book.  I need feedback from you. 

Is one of those points above what you're after?  Are there any specific theist arguments that you have trouble refuting?  Where would you like me to start?

[brewer]

OP, maybe, maybe not. Not sure it matters. Got Pascal's wager in the way?

Tell you what, you try to persuade me that unicorns do or don't exist. Then read what you wrote and sub god for unicorn.

[Organic Machine]

I say just be both. That's what I consider myself to be.

Don't claim to know what you don't know, but don't believe either if you don't see any good reason to. To me, that's the most reasonable and rational response.