4 ms·

> The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists Citation needed. If supportable, the purpose of the statement is required. Agnostic atheism is even more

> The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists Citation needed. If supportable, the purpose of the statement is required. Agnostic atheism is even more unsupportable than atheism or deism, because it is internally contradictory.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
The article explains why it isn't contradictory at the very top. "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."
- Maursault 5y ago
  > The article explains why it isn't contradictory at the very top. "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact." In fact, the wiki article does not explain anywhere how agnostic atheism is internally consistent and not contradictory. So... agnostic atheists don't believe in the existence of a deity, and yet they claim the existence of a deity is unknowable. These two positions are mutually exclusive, not believing in a deity is not admitting ignorance, and admitting ignorance can't also be not believing in a deity. This is cognitive dissonance.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    They are not mutually exclusive. It is unknowable using current techniques whether a teapot is in orbit between Earth and Mars, but I believe there is not. In exactly the same way, an agnostic would say it is unknowable whether there is a deity, but since no deity has made its presence known, it is perfectly logical (and consistent with agnosticism) to believe there is not. It is unknowable in advance whether Magnus Carlsen would beat me at chess, but I believe that he would. There is exactly zero cognitive dissonance here.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

The article explains why it isn't contradictory at the very top. "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

Maursault 5y ago
> The article explains why it isn't contradictory at the very top. "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact." In fact, the wiki article does not explain anywhere how agnostic atheism is internally consistent and not contradictory. So... agnostic atheists don't believe in the existence of a deity, and yet they claim the existence of a deity is unknowable. These two positions are mutually exclusive, not believing in a deity is not admitting ignorance, and admitting ignorance can't also be not believing in a deity. This is cognitive dissonance.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  They are not mutually exclusive. It is unknowable using current techniques whether a teapot is in orbit between Earth and Mars, but I believe there is not. In exactly the same way, an agnostic would say it is unknowable whether there is a deity, but since no deity has made its presence known, it is perfectly logical (and consistent with agnosticism) to believe there is not. It is unknowable in advance whether Magnus Carlsen would beat me at chess, but I believe that he would. There is exactly zero cognitive dissonance here.