Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[Jackalope]

For what it's worth, I consider myself an agnostic atheist (though in casual conversation I don't use the agnostic label). Not because I'm waffling or sitting on the fence on the issue, but because I think that there's some small possibility that I'm wrong - at least in terms of deism / pantheism. My doubt in terms of theism is to tiny that it's for all purposes non-existent.

Though in terms of deism / pantheism I'm more of an apatheist. It simply doesn't matter to me one way or another whether there is a deist / pantheist god. Would I like to know? Sure, but only to satisfy curiosity - it wouldn't change a thing about how I live my life.

Then again, perhaps I'm apatheist with respect to theism as well - because I pretty much don't give a shit about that, either.

[fr0d0]

It must be quite unnerving to believe in god all the time yet not know for certain he's real. I'd be constantly worried I was wasting my life away believing something that turned out not to be true.

That's what your intellect is for. You cannot have proof only reason it to be true. There certainly is no question of wasting life... because this belief isn't about some unknown unprovable future, but about present happiness and fulfilment. If like seems shit to you sometimes then to us theists, that's life wasted.

[Norfolk And Chance]

It must be quite unnerving to believe in god all the time yet not know for certain he's real. I'd be constantly worried I was wasting my life away believing something that turned out not to be true.

That's what your intellect is for. You cannot have proof only reason it to be true. There certainly is no question of wasting life... because this belief isn't about some unknown unprovable future, but about present happiness and fulfilment. If like seems shit to you sometimes then to us theists, that's life wasted.

I know lots of theists that have had shit periods in their lives. Although you are a minority, it's a sizeable minority as nearly half the UK population believe in god, so of course I know a few theists by chance.

[fr0d0]

Theists can fail too, sure. Atheists don't have a monopoly on that. I hope that cheers you up Norf.

Only 6% of the uk population are regular church goers, and 3% of those committed to their beliefs according to Christians. Therefore: Chances are you're ignorant of Xtianity. Evidence would certainly lead me tio that conclusion. Would that be correct?

[Tiberius]

Because the existence of any kind of deity can be tested scientifically (god hypothesis) and that hypothesis would be rejected.

How do you know that "God" doesn't exist outside the realm of science? Most religions subscribe to the idea that God exists on a higher plane of existence, outside of what we perceive as the observable universe. Science only works within the confines of our universe/multiverse, and not outside of it. Simply put, you cannot assign a scientific hypothesis to the question of whether God exists or not, and even if you could, one of the core tenets of science is that nothing is ever "proven". Science depends on falsifiability; that is, any ideas espoused by science must be able to be disproven in some way. If the possibility exists for something to be disproven, it can't possibly be held as absolute truth.

Exactly. Many atheists are frightened to claim to "know" there is no god, even though it's absolutely obvious there is no god.

I'm not frightened, and I disagree that it's "obvious" that there is no God.

They'd rather err on the side of caution so they have the upper hand in debate, and some maybe genuinely can't be sure and won't commit to sureity based on scientific principle, which is understandable.

I'm not erring on the side of caution either; I'm admitting that logically there is no way to prove absolutely that God does not exist. Also, "surety based on scientific principle" is in no way equal to "absolute truth".

However, the way I look at it, is if theists can know god exists then atheists can take the contrary position and know no god, and at least the atheist has a valid reason to claim to know there is no god - NO EVIDENCE = NO GOD!

Theists can't know that God exists, and that is the point. They may claim to know God exists, but they are mistaken, as are atheists who make claim to know God doesn't exist. Absolute knowledge is not affected by what people claim about it. Absolute knowledge is non-negotiable.

Also, in regard to your argument that "No Evidence = No God", it was not that long ago that we had didn't have evidence for the existence of black holes, but now we think they've been existing for billions of years. So, even though there was no evidence for black holes 100 or so years ago, they still existed. This contradicts your argument. Not having evidence for something says literally nothing about whether it exists or not. Therefore the most we can say about the existence of something with no evidence is that we cannot be sure, and until evidence arises that supports the existence of it, we cannot know whether it exists. What is a valid argument is to say the following: No evidence = No valid reason to believe in its existence.

NO EVIDENCE = NO SANTA CLAUS!



Would that be incorrect too?

Yes. Up until recently, we had no evidence for faster-than-light travel, but now we do. Maybe one day we'll find evidence for Santa Claus, although I highly doubt it since Santa Claus is a fictional character. Nonetheless, there is no logical argument which can invalidate the existence of Santa Claus as a real actual person. If you think you've found one, I will gladly show you how it is wrong.

Because I have seen no evidence for it AND because god's professed adherents are a pretty sorry lot.

How can you use either of those to comment on the absolute truth value of God's existence?

Sorry but if anybody is saying - even if just to make a point - that no evidence = no santa (or unicorns and fairies) is incorrect, then they are saying that there could possibly be a santa (or unicorns or fairies). This is completely laughable.

I'm disappointed.

Take a course in philosophy. You'll soon learn that it is impossible to state anything on the absolute truth values of the claims of the existence of Santa or unicorns. That doesn't mean we should believe they exist; on the contrary, since there is no evidence for their existence, we should have profound disbelief, but we cannot go any further without surrendering our critical thinking.

Do you know that unicorns and fairies don't exist? If so, how do you know?

Because they are fictional.

To argue this point further would be stupid - yes I know debating theists makes people like this - but come on!

Fictional because they have only ever appeared so far in stories. However, if we captured one tomorrow, you wouldn't be so smug, would you?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Theists can fail too, sure. Atheists don't have a monopoly on that. I hope that cheers you up Norf.

Only 6% of the uk population are regular church goers, and 3% of those committed to their beliefs according to Christians. Therefore: Chances are you're ignorant of Xtianity. Evidence would certainly lead me tio that conclusion. Would that be correct?

Ignorant of the numbers maybe (I thought belief in god was about 44%, wasn't talking about church numbers, or christians specifically), but I can't be totally ignorant of what christians think and believe, given we get told about it every day.

---

Nonetheless, there is no logical argument which can invalidate the existence of Santa Claus as a real actual person. If you think you've found one, I will gladly show you how it is wrong.

Santa Claus is a fictional character, this is a logical reason to know he's not real.

Take a course in philosophy. You'll soon learn that it is impossible to state anything on the absolute truth values of the claims of the existence of Santa or unicorns. That doesn't mean we should believe they exist; on the contrary, since there is no evidence for their existence, we should have profound disbelieve, but we cannot go any further without surrendering our critical thinking.

I won'tl be taking a course in philosophy any time soon. If philosophy thinks that stating you KNOW santa not to be real is "surrendering your critical thinking" then philosophy is not about truth but pointless pondering.

---

Fictional because they have only ever appeared so far in stories. However, if we captured one tomorrow, you wouldn't be so smug, would you?

Hypothetical question asking of my reaction to an event that will never, ever happen. Not ever.

Do you really believe that a person cannot know a fictional creature is not real?

[Phaedra]

I just consider myself an atheist. I've never really given much thought to the agnostic bit. It makes sense, but I really just don't give a shit.

[Faith No More]

You cannot have proof only reason it to be true.

If you could reason it to be true, would that not be proof?

[travaldinho]

I will only identify myself as a gnostic atheist if the other party can agree on certain definitions. We would have to agree on what constitutes as knowledge, whether they can accept that we can have knowledge without having absolute knowledge and what they are defining as god. My stance is that for every definition of god I have ever heard that has any practical application in the universe, I can say that I know it does not exist. Outside of these agreements I am ok with being an agnostic atheist :p

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Exactly. Many atheists are frightened to claim to "know" there is no god, even though it's absolutely obvious there is no god.

Logical fallacy;argument from personal incredulity.


A person saying" I know there is no god" Is doing exactly the same as a person who states "I know there IS a god" . Each is stating a position based on personal certitude rather than evidence. Belief without evidence is called faith.

I'm a Skeptic. To me, that means all questions remain open. I try to avoid truth statements,choosing to opine. My agnostic atheism is a result of my skepticism; I am unable to believe in god(a) due to the lack of credible evidence. However. I cannot claim to KNOW. It matters not at all how unlikely I think it is that I'm mistaken: I MIGHT be.


BUT the issue is largely academic to me. On a day-to-day basis,I live AS IF there are no such as,for example: god (s), souls,angels, djins, geniis,demons,ghosts,the paranormal, dragons,mountain trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden..


Argument from lack of evidence is also unsound as a principle.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination