6 ms·

Atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic are orthogonal. Atheist/theist is about whether you believe there is a god or believe there is no god. Agnostic/gnostic is a

Atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic are orthogonal. Atheist/theist is about whether you believe there is a god or believe there is no god. Agnostic/gnostic is about whether you claim it is absolutely knowable one way or another. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists as they acknowledge the point you make about the unknowability of the nonexistence of an entity. Many theists are gnostic and some claim direct, personal knowledge of god. However, the fact that I am an agnostic atheist shouldn't be taken to mean that I am in any way weak in my atheism - my belief that there is no god - or that I don't think there are extremely strong, rational, evidence-based reasons for that belief. The best way it can be put is to take an absurd example of something that cannot be known to be false but which everyone will agree is surely false. For example, that somewhere in the Boötes void there is an elephant floating through space. This cannot be proven to be false, but there are many strong, rational, evidence-based reasons for believing it not to be true. These reasons aren't just about the absurdity of the notion but about the theories we have formed to understand how things like elephants come to exist, and the evidence we have gathered for such theories. I'm not much of a fan of Richard Dawkins' all-out assault on religion (while I'm an atheist I'm far from anti-religion, and I spend more time in church than most christian believers), but this is one thing he explained very clearly in The God Delusion, and it's a point that I think is worth making clear.

Maursault 5y ago
But why should your belief be more compelling than another's? How is it not more correct to admit honestly no one knows the way we know we are in pain when we are in pain? What do we believe the value the sqrt of -1 is? What do we believe the middle name of the 14th US citizen born in Schenectady NY is? Why do we drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway? The honest, irrefutable answers here are simple. We do not know. > The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists Facts not in evidence.
- omnicognate 5y ago
  My belief ("conviction" would have been a better choice of word) should be more compelling because there is a huge weight of evidence for it. The point is that while "you can't absolutely prove the nonexistence of something" is true, it's just not very relevant. There are many things that I can't know with the same absolute certainty with which I can know that the real numbers are uncountable or that I exist given the fact that I am aware (I think therefore I am), but that's not the standard required in order to "know" something. I am as confident that the God of the bible doesn't exist as I am that there is no elephant floating in the Boötes void. Quite a lot more so, actually. This isn't an arbitrary belief, of equal weight to all possible beliefs. It's based on evidence and reason. > Facts not in evidence. Well, I can't speak for most atheists but it's the only version of atheism that makes sense given the obvious fact that you can't absolutely prove a negative existential (outside of maths at any rate).
  - Maursault 5y ago
    A declaration can be true or false or neither, but not both true and false. Atheists could be right or they could be wrong. Same with deists. Agnostics can not be wrong. This elevates their position over any that could be wrong.
    - omnicognate 5y ago
      You're persistently failing (refusing?) to understand what I've said about what "agnostic" means. I've explained it pretty clearly. If you're going to interpret it to mean "undecided" or "vague" or something instead then that's fine but you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You're attempting to leverage it to say that the nonexistence of God isn't something that you can evaluate with evidence and reason, and I'm afraid that doesn't work however you choose to interpret the term "agnostic".
      - Maursault 5y ago
        > you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You are simply and obviously mistaken. I get to do whatever the hell I want, because you are not the boss of me, have as yet been unable to assail my bulletproof logic, while yours is riddled with fallacy, such as ad hominem (personal attack), straw man (false attribution of statements), and argument from authority (your confidence in your belief), unapologetically employed unconvincingly as impotent and faulty reasoning bereft of any support beyond your say so. Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
        omnicognate 5y ago
        I seem to have made you angry. It wasn't my intention. "You don't get to" is a figure of speech, pointing out that to make the claim is nonsensical. You are of course at liberty to make the claim and, since it makes no sense, I am free to ignore it (which I wouldn't be if it were actually a compelling argument). It's very simple. It's well known that "X does not exist" is never provable in the same way as "X exists" is. In the latter case we can present X itself and say "look, it exists", end of story. In the former, there's always the possibility that we didn't look in all the places X could be, that we failed to properly define X or were looking for it the wrong way, etc. You attempted to use this to say that atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable". I'll quote your original comment: > Atheists make precisely the same mistake as deists, claiming to know the unknowable. Agnostics have the most compelling argument. What I have been pointing out is the fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. Questions of that nature are very much open to such analysis, so that argument falls flat. Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Rather, you have continued to assert that this belief of mine cannot have any basis, using the same flawed reasoning. I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. That isn't argument from authority, it's argument from evidence. You just haven't shown any interest in engaging with it. As to the definition of agnosticism, it can be defined either way and makes no difference to the refutation of your flawed reasoning above. I simply think that the definition I gave (a mainstream one, but not the only one) is useful if you're concerned with the "unknowability" of nonexistence as you appear to be. It allows you to make it clear that theism is a belief of the form "X exists" and can therefore in theory be proven absolutely by displaying the object (there's God right there, say hello, clearly he exists, you're looking right at Him) although nobody has done so, while atheism cannot in principle be demonstrated true in that way. With my definition of agnosticism that comes out as "theists can be agnostic or gnostic, whereas atheists can only be agnostic". With your definition of agnosticism you lose the ability to make that point so succinctly. However it remains just as true. Now, if you have anything to say that actually addresses any of the points I've made, or you would like to present any evidence or reasoning that might cause me to reevaluate my atheism, I'd be happy to continue. But if all you can produce at this stage is further rants I won't reply. Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". I've assumed that because it's the only argument I'm aware of anyone having made for this claim, and it's a commonly presented one. Also, you haven't presented any alternative justification. There is, however, the possibility that you have some other reason for thinking atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable", and if so I'm keen to hear it.
invalidname 5y ago
I used to be an agnostic but stopped. Stephen Colbert put it best: "Isn't an Agnostic just an Atheist without balls?". Sure, we can't be "sure" but the probability is so low it isn't worth considering and entertaining that possibility.
- Maursault 5y ago
  FWIW, Stephan Colbert is stridently Catholic. His quote is mocking agnostics and atheists.
  - invalidname 5y ago
    I'm very well aware of his biography. This mocks agnostics not Atheists. He normally mocks everyone, Catholics included. This specific comment was made in "the report" before interviewing a well known agnostic whose name eludes me. His intentions though are irrelevant. It's a pretty spot on observation.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      To the contrary, without intent the statement is meaningless. Inherent in Colbert's quip is the perception, "atheists have a lot of nerve," and from the mouth of a believer, this is plainly derision. This is well-supported by further statements Colbert has made, such as "atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority." This is not praise or respect, but obviously contempt instead.
      - invalidname 5y ago
        What I read is your perception. That's fine. Mine is different. Mine is that he hates assholes who use any belief as a cudgel against other people. Atheists using our lack of faith to attack the faithful are also assholes. I agree with that. Stephens intent is always comedy first and foremost. Regardless. Agnostics do indeed lack a spine and try to wiggle their way out using philosophical minutia. Case in point this discussion. You're trying to project thoughts into a comedians intent. Instead of admitting that the words themselves have truth to them.

Maursault 5y ago

But why should your belief be more compelling than another's? How is it not more correct to admit honestly no one knows the way we know we are in pain when we are in pain? What do we believe the value the sqrt of -1 is? What do we believe the middle name of the 14th US citizen born in Schenectady NY is? Why do we drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway? The honest, irrefutable answers here are simple. We do not know. > The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists Facts not in evidence.

omnicognate 5y ago
My belief ("conviction" would have been a better choice of word) should be more compelling because there is a huge weight of evidence for it. The point is that while "you can't absolutely prove the nonexistence of something" is true, it's just not very relevant. There are many things that I can't know with the same absolute certainty with which I can know that the real numbers are uncountable or that I exist given the fact that I am aware (I think therefore I am), but that's not the standard required in order to "know" something. I am as confident that the God of the bible doesn't exist as I am that there is no elephant floating in the Boötes void. Quite a lot more so, actually. This isn't an arbitrary belief, of equal weight to all possible beliefs. It's based on evidence and reason. > Facts not in evidence. Well, I can't speak for most atheists but it's the only version of atheism that makes sense given the obvious fact that you can't absolutely prove a negative existential (outside of maths at any rate).
- Maursault 5y ago
  A declaration can be true or false or neither, but not both true and false. Atheists could be right or they could be wrong. Same with deists. Agnostics can not be wrong. This elevates their position over any that could be wrong.
  - omnicognate 5y ago
    You're persistently failing (refusing?) to understand what I've said about what "agnostic" means. I've explained it pretty clearly. If you're going to interpret it to mean "undecided" or "vague" or something instead then that's fine but you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You're attempting to leverage it to say that the nonexistence of God isn't something that you can evaluate with evidence and reason, and I'm afraid that doesn't work however you choose to interpret the term "agnostic".
    - Maursault 5y ago
      > you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You are simply and obviously mistaken. I get to do whatever the hell I want, because you are not the boss of me, have as yet been unable to assail my bulletproof logic, while yours is riddled with fallacy, such as ad hominem (personal attack), straw man (false attribution of statements), and argument from authority (your confidence in your belief), unapologetically employed unconvincingly as impotent and faulty reasoning bereft of any support beyond your say so. Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
      - omnicognate 5y ago
        I seem to have made you angry. It wasn't my intention. "You don't get to" is a figure of speech, pointing out that to make the claim is nonsensical. You are of course at liberty to make the claim and, since it makes no sense, I am free to ignore it (which I wouldn't be if it were actually a compelling argument). It's very simple. It's well known that "X does not exist" is never provable in the same way as "X exists" is. In the latter case we can present X itself and say "look, it exists", end of story. In the former, there's always the possibility that we didn't look in all the places X could be, that we failed to properly define X or were looking for it the wrong way, etc. You attempted to use this to say that atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable". I'll quote your original comment: > Atheists make precisely the same mistake as deists, claiming to know the unknowable. Agnostics have the most compelling argument. What I have been pointing out is the fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. Questions of that nature are very much open to such analysis, so that argument falls flat. Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Rather, you have continued to assert that this belief of mine cannot have any basis, using the same flawed reasoning. I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. That isn't argument from authority, it's argument from evidence. You just haven't shown any interest in engaging with it. As to the definition of agnosticism, it can be defined either way and makes no difference to the refutation of your flawed reasoning above. I simply think that the definition I gave (a mainstream one, but not the only one) is useful if you're concerned with the "unknowability" of nonexistence as you appear to be. It allows you to make it clear that theism is a belief of the form "X exists" and can therefore in theory be proven absolutely by displaying the object (there's God right there, say hello, clearly he exists, you're looking right at Him) although nobody has done so, while atheism cannot in principle be demonstrated true in that way. With my definition of agnosticism that comes out as "theists can be agnostic or gnostic, whereas atheists can only be agnostic". With your definition of agnosticism you lose the ability to make that point so succinctly. However it remains just as true. Now, if you have anything to say that actually addresses any of the points I've made, or you would like to present any evidence or reasoning that might cause me to reevaluate my atheism, I'd be happy to continue. But if all you can produce at this stage is further rants I won't reply. Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". I've assumed that because it's the only argument I'm aware of anyone having made for this claim, and it's a commonly presented one. Also, you haven't presented any alternative justification. There is, however, the possibility that you have some other reason for thinking atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable", and if so I'm keen to hear it.

invalidname 5y ago

I used to be an agnostic but stopped. Stephen Colbert put it best: "Isn't an Agnostic just an Atheist without balls?". Sure, we can't be "sure" but the probability is so low it isn't worth considering and entertaining that possibility.

Maursault 5y ago
FWIW, Stephan Colbert is stridently Catholic. His quote is mocking agnostics and atheists.
- invalidname 5y ago
  I'm very well aware of his biography. This mocks agnostics not Atheists. He normally mocks everyone, Catholics included. This specific comment was made in "the report" before interviewing a well known agnostic whose name eludes me. His intentions though are irrelevant. It's a pretty spot on observation.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    To the contrary, without intent the statement is meaningless. Inherent in Colbert's quip is the perception, "atheists have a lot of nerve," and from the mouth of a believer, this is plainly derision. This is well-supported by further statements Colbert has made, such as "atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority." This is not praise or respect, but obviously contempt instead.
    - invalidname 5y ago
      What I read is your perception. That's fine. Mine is different. Mine is that he hates assholes who use any belief as a cudgel against other people. Atheists using our lack of faith to attack the faithful are also assholes. I agree with that. Stephens intent is always comedy first and foremost. Regardless. Agnostics do indeed lack a spine and try to wiggle their way out using philosophical minutia. Case in point this discussion. You're trying to project thoughts into a comedians intent. Instead of admitting that the words themselves have truth to them.