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.
Sure, we can't be "sure" but the probability is so low it isn't worth considering and entertaining that possibility.
His intentions though are irrelevant. It's a pretty spot on observation.
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.
Certainly, everyone is free to draw their own interpretation, but only Colbert's interpretation is accurate. Your argument will remain unconvincing so long as it is unsupported by any valid reasoning or provably true statements. By employing a false narrative to insist what any other is doing, you are committing ad hominem and straw man fallacies simultaneously. By insisting it is as you say it is without backing up claims with evidence supporting the claims, you are committing an argument from authority, which is also fallacy. Invalid argument remains unconvincing.
False. This is precisely what you have done, and the evidence is plainly seen in your comments.
> You're the one busy with that strawman.
This statement is in fact an example of ad hominem fallacy and straw man fallacy.
> You're the one doing the whole "what he thinks" shtick.
Again, this is both ad hominem and straw man. I have supported my position with Colbert's known disposition and his very own words.
> Which I repeatedly said is redundant.
This is a new and separate claim, which, because of the content of the claim and the lack of actually previously claiming such, the statement is currently false.
Yet you persist to cherry pick...
> The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists
Facts not in evidence.
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).
Agnostics can not be wrong. This elevates their position over any that could be wrong.
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]
"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.
Not possible.
> 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.
What fallacy are you referring to? Please name it. In fact, this entire post, nearly every sentence, there is a lack of any actual identifiable reference to what you are referring. When you are trying to explain something, it helps immensely to be specific, as opposed to vaguely referring to some previous statement.
> 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.
Noted. But when someone or anyone makes a claim, the onus is upon them to support their claim. I am not responsible for your claims or your lack of support for your claims.
> I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view.
What was stopping you before? Look, I think you have it all figured out, and that's really all that matters.
> your flawed reasoning above.
I'd appreciate it if you would be specific.
> 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".
My claim, as always, is that atheists make the same exact mistake that deists make, which is that they both claim to know something, like knowing 2 + 3 = 5, that, in fact, they do not know that something, they merely believe it. It is belief, and belief is not knowledge, no matter how strong that belief is. Certainly, they have knowledge of their belief, and may think their belief is knowledge, but it is clearly not. You forgot your keys and you believe you left them on the coffee table, but that belief could be wrong. You may have left them on the counter. What is that "belief" when it is proven incorrect? One can not prove that 2 + 3 != 5, no matter how much it is believed. The best that could happen is to personally accept responsibility for the error, relinquish belief, which can be wrong and probably is wrong more often than not, and gain in its place actual genuine bone fide knowledge and awareness of the truth of the matter. And if the truth can not be revealed, then relinquish the possibility of knowledge, which is exactly what agnostics do, and they do know something. They know that they don't know, which is the most honest and most supportable position to have among the choices of atheism, deism, and agnosticism. If one is not aware of what one does not know, there are some serious problems.
As I keep saying, I specifically do not claim to know it "like knowing 2+3=5". I am "agnostic" in that respect (by my definition).
Your mistake is thinking that that is the only form of knowledge that warrants the word "knowing". The vast majority of the things I know I do not know in that way. I know that when I go downstairs and open the door there will not be an aggresive, 12 foot spider waiting for me. On the basis of this knowledge I do not consider arming myself with a baseball bat or using another exit. I do however have to admit that I cannot absolutely exclude the possibility in the way I can exclude the possibility of 2+3 being 6.
If I restricted myself to the form of knowledge you are requiring I would only know some maths, that I exist and certain specifics of the world I can see right at this moment. Fortunately I don't need to. Humans have powerful ways of deriving knowledge that is not of that nature, but is nonetheless knowledge. All of natural science, for example.
I hope this makes it clear. I explicitly do not claim the specific kind of knowledge you are saying I claim (that is a straw man). I do however claim knowledge of the same sort as most of the things I know, such as that all massive bodies attract one another. The kind of knowledge that admits the logical possibility of being demonstrated wrong at some point, but which is nonetheless strong, evidentially supported knowledge.
At every meaningful level we have to have trust in something. When we say the Earth is round we have to trust our instruments, our faculties, our observations, etc.
In that sense, everything is unknowable in an absolutist sense, because there’s always some faith required somewhere.
But that doesn’t mean there might or might not be a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I'd like to stop you right there because the attribution of "meaning" is an anthropomorphic judgement.
> ...we have to have trust in something
In fact, we have a choice whether to or not, or to do something else entirely.
> In that sense, everything is unknowable in an absolutist sense, because there’s always some faith required somewhere.
Not so. It is not possible to mistake pain, because if you think you are in pain, then you are in pain, thus pain can not be unknowable and does not require faith to be experienced.
> But that doesn’t mean there might or might not be a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars
Rephrasing: !(x or !x)
Using De Morgan's Theorem [1], !(x or !x) = (!x and !!x)
Using Double Negation [2], (!x and !!x) = (!x and x)
You have inadvertently proven the opposite of what you have claimed, since obviously (x and !x) can not possibly be true.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
> It is not possible to mistake pain, because if you think you are in pain, then you are in pain
Phantom pain. You can trust that your amputated leg is in pain, or you can doubt it. The choice is yours.
Very few things are knowable without faith somewhere in the chain because our own brains are not infallible observers. “I am” is a famous exception.
That sounds like a philosophy where thinking an experience is real is equivalent to it being real. Which sounds a lot like faith.
Fascinating observation, as flawed as your reasoning is, because pain is not at all like, say, experiencing a bird flying past, which could be real, could be virtual, it could even be a dream that the individual can not determine is not real, but that does not make it real. Pain does not work this way, so the fallacy you've employed is false equivalence, because you are claiming that if I say "pain is unmistakeable whether it is phantom pain or conventional pain," you've conflated that specific example to a generalization where it no longer holds, that experiencing real x or dream x is equivalent, which is not necessarily true for anything but pain.
Again, "if you think you are in pain, then you are in pain" is true, even if it can not be true for all things that could replace pain in that true statement, like if you think you are in Florida, then you are in Florida, which might not be true. But "if you think you are in pain then you are in pain" is always true in all cases, everywhere, always, and most people can immediately intuit this, because it is true. One must have deeply flawed reasoning if one expects anything else to be able to fit in place of pain as though the word were a variable. It is not. I made a specific claim and I made no other. You're making those new claims and arguing against your new claims, making it not only false equivalence, but also the venerable straw man.
The mind is awesome as far as it goes, but let us not deify it.
The assertion that atheists claim to know the unknowable is baseless. We have mathematical theorems for optimally reasoning about the unknowable, the implications of which look a lot like atheism. Not following through on the implications of those theorems is willful ignorance.
I reject any argument that tries to treat agnosticism as distinct from atheism, insofar as it tacitly rejects mathematics that show their equivalence.
Atheism is the belief in the absence of God. Agnosticism is an admission of lack of knowledge of God existence, neither affirmed nor denied. Thus, claiming they are the same is false equivalence.
Many outright reject specific gods of mainstream religions with known logical contradictions but do not claim to know for certain that there is no teapot between Earth's and Mars's orbit or that there is no supernatural deity at all, only that both are unlikely.
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.
"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.
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.
God was man's first attempt at understanding nature in terms of intent and action, aka the use of our animal model psychology and misapplying it to nature.
God is a gobbledygook word that has no meaning or solid definition. Just because I invent an idea does not mean it has any basis in reality.
Spoken like someone without mathematical education. The greatest discoveries are ones outside our finite little toy of a cosmos - ones you could never see, or if you could, could not understand with your limited senses. For example, Galois theory is completely abstract and lets you work without working, and see without seeing.
You don't seem to grasp human beings fought over their imaginary beings for centuries and created all sorts of drama that had real world political implications, it's nice of you to theory craft from your comfortable chair in the 21st century but the reality is mistaken notions of reality has given birth to centuries of blood and suffering.
So no, your gobbledygook is not neutral, your not some higher reasoning being, you're clueless because I do research in this area and you can test whether words or ideas in language are valid because its a natural phenomenon.
Basically, you have a strong opinion with nothing substantive to support it. That is all. In effect, you do not know, rather, you believe. You have faith that God does not exist. Deists are no different.
> the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
I think you’re doing the opposite and expecting a burden of disproof instead of a burden of proof.
A burden of disproof is unreasonable and frequently unattainable.
If I said "It's possible there are teapots orbiting some distant planets", you would hopefully disregard the statement as being nonsense. It is possible, but so what? Putting the word "possible" before something doesn't by itself make it worth my time to think about.
On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim.
> You're claiming they might
I have made no such claim, making your assertion a straw man fallacy. My claim was only that among atheists, deists and agnostics, only agnostics have a compelling argument. IOW neither atheists' nor deists' arguments have logical nor epistemological merit, and the flaws in their arguments are identical: claiming unknowable knowledge.
Not 100% correct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
> Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
You’re talking about the most narrow definition, which is addressed by Russell’s Teapot. According to Russel, the logical position that there is no teapot floating in space is much more reasonable in the absence of evidence than saying you don’t know. To say you don’t know and to continue to entertain theories of a teapot in space is simply a waste of time. Or, if you say you don’t know but refuse to entertain theories of the teapot, then you’re simply projecting agnosticism, without truly practicing it.
A more common application of the term “atheism” is the absence of belief. An absence of belief requires no proof. It’s a rejection of an assertion, which is different than an assertion.
In fact, it’s a common logical starting point of not believing in something until you have a reason to believe. I’m sure you do it all the time with knowledge that isn’t innate. And then of course as evidence presents itself you’re free to reevaluate and change your mind.
You don’t get any bonus points for “not ever being wrong” by saying “I don’t know” all the time. It’s perfectly reasonable to say “I don’t believe you.” Or “No, it doesn’t.” as long as you’re willing to accept future information and revise your views then. Not being wrong isn’t the same as being right.
Progress comes equally from doubt as it does from curiosity. Countless discoveries were made by rejecting unsubstantiated claims. So from a practical standpoint, rejecting theories seems to have some utility.
So, if accepting or rejecting a hypothesis helps someone live a better life, then why not?
Not in my opinion.
You were born with an absence in the belief of an infinite number of things. Absence of belief is a default state.
Presumably you have a filter of what beliefs you choose to add to that default state you were born in.
Having a filter of: “Does it help me live a better life?” seems good to me. “Can anyone reproduce it?” seems like a decent filter too.
Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.
Believing a negative is saying that I have all the evidence I need and I’ve come to a conclusion. The burden is on me to show that I’ve collected enough evidence.
That’s how I see them being different states.
Again, the "absence of belief" is identical to "not believing:" "the evidence has not convinced you, so you do not believe it," is, in fact, a belief. Believing something is a belief, and not believing something is also a belief. Belief is not knowledge of truth, it is a gamble that something is true without seeing the dice. When you see the dice, you know.
I really don’t think so.
Today you probably have an absence of belief in rainbow colored lions.
That’s different from trying to figure out if rainbow colored lions exist, evaluating claims and deciding to believe that they don’t exist.
Absence of belief = passive default
Belief = active decision making
When someone mentions the words “rainbow colored lions” or even makes a claim “I saw a rainbow colored lion”, I don’t feel a burden to evaluate their claim. I’m more evaluating the structure of their claim: they’ve provided no evidence.
So, I am choosing to believe that they’ve made an unfounded argument. I don’t suddenly feel the need to actively not believe in rainbow colored lions.
> On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim
I can only assume you're trolling, but sure I'll bite, because I have nothing better to do.
Again, athiests are not making the claims. In fact it's insulting to even have the word "athiest" exist, but I understand the historical context that led to it's existence.
A person is just a person, but then some people come along and make claims that there are gods. So the people ask;"Why? Can you prove it?". These questioners don't have beliefs that need to be proven, because they are the default. The theist is the one making the claim.
ad hominem fallacy
> Again, athiests are not making the claims
Atheism does not say nothing; it is saying something. Atheism is an argument, and as such, it is fundamentally and ideologically making a claim. Any claim may be examined for rigor.
A person is not born believing in gods. They are not making arguments about the existence or non-existence of gods. One day someone says to them that gods may exist, this other person has made a claim. It would be more than strange to say this person has a more valid viewpoint than the person who has made no claims.
Goodnight and good luck. And even if you are trolling, I hope you find what it is you're _really_ seeking in life.
I think this is a popular kind of argument, and the form of it isn't necessarily invalid. The form is to use a developmental model of a fetus developing into baby, to infant, to rugrat, etc., as a frame to eliminate something that, allegedly, emerges at some point during healthy development, utilizing simplified ideas in the cognitive theory of moral development or some such to show that something is not there, and then it is, almost as if by slight of hand, to construct the droll ramification that it is not an inherent quality, thus whatever it is, is not a priori, it is nurture not nature, beliefs are behavior, and they are learned behavior.
But in this case, it is not remotely as clear as I believe you would like. It could be nature. Due to a number of interesting cases and non-controlled, ad hoc studies on single patient bases, an idea emerged (from medical professionals exposed to patients with brain injury, most of the injuries caused by bicycle accidents) a concept emerged known as the Godspot: A conscious patient with part of their skull cap removed and their brain exposed was given a small charge on a particular area of the brain from, seriously, a zapper wand, idk what it is called, and the patient, an atheist that was not raised exposed to religion, experienced religious rapture and epiphany, and concerningly with other patients, visions of what we'd all recognize as Hell. Subsequent, and especially more recent investigations have shown this brain state is real and academically reproducible, but that there probably isn't a particular Godspot because so many parts of the brain are involved, arguably necessarily.
Regardless, whatever the hell that is, it evolved in humans, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe it occurs and can be induced in nearly all if not all mammalian brains.
And the repercussion of this extant evolved brain state is that: whatever triggers belief in God, at the very least, is not necessarily introduced through only nurture. It is part of what human beings are, part of common human genetic make-up assuredly, and maybe also other or all mammals, meaning, it probably existed long, long before humans showed up.
Have a goodnight.