Atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists" because they think the term exonerates them from the burden of proving...

Atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists" because they think the term exonerates them from the burden of proving their claims to be true--such as "God almost certainly doesn't exist"--but the term is entirely incoherent.

If "atheism" remains as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the denial of the existence of God, or as the belief God doesn't exist, then to call one's self an "agnostic atheist" is to say one doesn't know if God exists and believes God doesn't exist--which is logically incoherent as not knowing requires not believing and one can't believe and not believe at the same time--or it is to say one doesn't know if God exists and denies the existence of God. The term "denies the existence of God" can be taken to mean "believes God doesn't exist," in which case the latter is logically incoherent for the same reason as the former, or "doesn't believe God exists," which can be taken to mean the same thing, or "lacking belief that God exists."

If "atheism" is defined as "lacking belief that God exists," and one who calls themselves an "agnostic atheist" also lacks belief that God doesn't exist, or the necessarily existent propositional negation of God's existence, then that person lacks belief that God exists and lacks belief that God doesn't exist is therefore an agnostic, not an "agnostic atheist." Such a person could just as easily define themselves as an "agnostic a-atheist," using the classical definition of "atheism," meaning one who doesn't know if God exists and lacks a belief that God doesn't exist.

If an "agnostic atheist" doesn't lack belief that God doesn't exist, which is the same as their having belief that God doesn't exist, which is the same as believing God doesn't exist, then that person is an atheist, not an "agnostic atheist."

tl;dr "Agnostic atheist" is nonsensical gibberish used as an excuse not to support one's claims of the non-existence, or unlikely existence, of God.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

you dont need to be an atheist to argue with religion fags since there has been 1000's of gods and religions just say tell em that

there is no proof that one is more right than another which essentially brings you to the ethical conclusions of atheism since all the religions have such varied beliefs and rituals that you can't take just one seriously or follow one specific god as most of what you have to do to believe will eventually be contrarian to some other deity.

pretty shit bait over all

bump

ITT: incompetent philosophy

While i lack the empirical proof that says dragons don't exist, i'm pretty comfortable in my assumption that they don't. same goes for your god. 3/10 bait because i answered

tl;dr fuck off

The term "God" was introduced by religion. The burden of proof lies upon them in order to convince me, the non-believer, that their God[s] exist.

If I proclaim to you that little underwear-thieving smurfs exist, it is up to me to prove to you that they do... not the other way around.

It would also be a more efficient use of time, as the person who already knows that they exist is in a more comfortable position to answer questions than a person who doesn't know they exist.

you know you are asking a god pounder to use logic right?

...

>Atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists" because they think the term exonerates them
from the burden of proving
It does, idiot. you can't prove a negative. The burden is definitely held by believers
>their claims to be true--such as "God almost certainly doesn't exist"--

What the fuck is this? You're not making any sense, dude.

Lacking a belief in something such as a god (that which has no evidence in its favor) isn't a positive or negative claim. There's neither justification nor excuses needed here.

To be fair he does have pretty solid logic. I've taken a few college classes in both Philosophy and Logic, especially truth tabling arguments. We don't know that he's a "God-pounder" but it is likely, as most people who start this kind of thread usually are just chumming the channels of Sup Forums.

It makes sense though. In order for you to believe that something doesn't exist, it must exist (at least in an idea, form or thought) in the first place. Atheists involuntarily make the assumption that what we call a "God[s]" exist, and have a lack of belief in it or outright refute it.

It's more logical to be an Agnostic. You can't prove that God does or doesn't exist because it very well may be that he exists somewhere in space. Each of us will never search the entire Universe and that's not taking into account if we have multiple dimensions either. The reason that somebody else can't come and offer us proof is because usually that proof is of the anecdotal type, which is just straight ass when trying to prove or refute something in the first place. It is logically baseless and is only held on your word. A person's word nowadays is worth just as much as a fifth of a penny.

Let's have a conversation Sup Forums.

Believing that there is no deity and lacking a belief in a deity are not the same thing.

Also, agnosticism is not simply "I don't know one way or the other." That makes it seem much more neutral than it is. (A)gnosticism is a claim to the degree of knowledge of which one holds. It is perfectly reasonable to say that one is an atheist - lacking a belief in a deity - but also claiming that one does not have an absolute certainty in their claims (agnosticism). It means that after observation and consideration that one is inclined to lack a belief in the existence of a deity, but the absolute certainty of its existence cannot be proven one way or the other until more fulfilling and falsifiable evidence has surfaced. Agnostic atheism is not a way to avoid providing proof for one's claims (even though the burden of proof does technically lie with the theists currently), it is considering the givens we currently know and deciding that even though a god probably does not exist, we lack the physical evidence or a priori deductions to prove with certainty one way or the other.

But, let's imagine, for a moment, that you were correct in saying that one cannot both be an atheist and an agnostic. We know that (a)gnosticism refers to the degree of knowledge in which one claims. If I call myself an agnostic, then I claim knowledge that is likely one way or the other, but not certain. But.. in what regard? To what topic? The existence of a deity? Then I have to choose between having a belief in a deity (theism) or lacking a belief in a deity (atheism). If you want to group both the people who do and do not have a belief in the existence of a deity into one group labeled "agnostics," then you are equating belief-holders and belief-lackers as being the same thing, in which they are not. The only thing they have in common is their uncertainty as to the absolute existence of the deity in question.

Jesus Christ, calm that shit down. You're in a discussion about a deity, not writing your thesis.

I wouldn't be writing a thesis in the first place anyhow; I've been out of school for close to a year now. I'm just kinda bored

Well I believe but I don't give enough of a shit to care
Here's how I think okay
To not go to hell(I'm fine with purgatory, should it exist), you have to be a good person
If you had to have faith, and go to church that means millions of good willed people went to hell
And that's defeats the purpose of God, therefore that isn't viable
Therefore, if I'm not a shitty person, I don't go to hell

>"can't prove a negative"
>being this retarded

...

Congratulations, OP. You are not a faggot today. Good job.

Saved for future threads.

Gujob.

I wonder what this guy thinks of agnostic theists.

how can you claim to know what you don't know?

I must say that your assertion that God at the very least exists in the realm of thought tends to encourage the use of an ontological argument - most commonly St. Anselm's. There's a lot of problems when attempting to prove the physical existence of an entity using a priori deductions alone. For example, St. Anselm defined God as "a being in which no greater could be conceived." He then used that definition of God to assert that a God who exists in both nature and in the mind is greater than a God who exists solely in the mind, therefore God must exist. At first this seems like sound logic, but a few of his contemporaries disagreed with him, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas said that one could not know the true nature of God, and to define his nature arbitrarily does little to bolster his argument. Or, another criticism, was that one could use this form of reasoning to prove the existence of any entity that currently exists solely in the mind, because of the exact same arbitrarily defined definitions that Aquinas pointed out. I could say that the purple dragon of which no greater dragon could be conceived must exist in my garage necessarily because a dragon that exists both in my garage and in my mind is greater than the dragon that exists solely in my mind, and therefore, there's a purple dragon in my garage.

This of course is merely St. Anselm's ontological argument, a few other philosophers throughout history have offered their own, but they are usually met with heavy criticism. I do have to admit, it's a hell of a mind-bending exercise.

So why do you categorize everyone who is agnostic as "agnostic atheist"? Why can't I just be agnostic

...

If you define yourself as agnostic and only agnostic, you are saying "I don't have absolute certainty of my claims." In this, you are failing to specify the degree of certainty pertaining to what topic is in question.

Agnosticism - not having absolute, certain knowledge of the claim in question.
Gnosticism - absolute, certain knowledge of the claim in question.
Theism - Having a belief in the existence of a deity.
Atheism - the lack of a belief in the existence of a deity.

Think of it like a political compass. Theism at the top, atheism at the bottom, gnosticism on the far right, and agnosticism on the far left.

Lmao...to me it sounds like god has taken over your life weather you believe in him or not. Enjoy your life fag

I'm impressed. There are not very many people that I've met that even know of St. Anselm's existence, yet alone his philosophy.

We getting medieval up in here Sup Forumsros.

There was also another criticism of St. Anselm which was made by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. Which is his "perfect island" argument, which essentially debunks the physical traits of what God ought to be. I heavily encourage you to look into it. I think it went on to say that there would always be a better God. The argument went something like this:

What is a perfect island? What is it's shape, color, what lives on it, where is it located, how big is it?

Gaunilo thought of the island as being perfectly round. It is indeed a perfect island, but it could always grow in size, so there would always be a more "perfecter" island. There would always be a God (if he exists) greater than that of the last one, and if there is only one God and if he is infinitely powerful, there would always be one God in the future that would be more powerful than the last, which makes it the most perfect because he is the most powerful.

I've come unprepared but this is gold.

Many thanks.

OP tip for next thread:

GOD = Y/N?

Now, see, the problem with your argument is that your definition of the word "belief" is too strict. As a presumably religious person, you of all people should understand the concept of faith. It is wholly coherent to believe God doesn't exist while also asserting that His existence or nonexistence is unknowable; more generally, there's nothing inherently wrong or fallacious with simultaneously believing something and conceding it may or may not actually be the case.

I think the mistake you're making is in the assumption that everyone's out to make a claim. If you're consenting to engage in rational debate on a topic, then indeed any stance you take on the topic you should know, or at least believe you know, to be true. However, just because someone believes something does not mean they automatically are willing to debate it.

Frankly, I believe in God, but am unwilling to debate the matter, because I already know my belief is not founded in any certain and knowable fact, and therefore such a debate would be fruitless: I would be unable to convince the opposition that God exists, because I would have no evidence; and the opposition would be unable to convince me He does not, because I am already adequately convinced of the possibility, and choose to PRIVATELY reject that possibility in favor of the alternative, for personal and illogical reasons that I am WELL AWARE are illogical, continue to pursue regardless, and am unwilling to submit for scrutiny.

philosophical burden of proof, cunt

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

enjoy your (you)

(continued) TL;DR: I believe what I believe and reserve the right to knowingly refuse to listen to reason. The fact that you disagree with me does not make my mind your personal sandbox.

Bullshit. If you know you're wrong, it's your civic responsibility to start being right instead.

>which is logically incoherent as not knowing requires not believing and one can't believe and not believe at the same time--or it is to say one doesn't know if God exists and denies the existence of God
>not knowing requires not believing
but that's where you are wrong and where your whole argument falls apart and that's why OP is as usual a faggot

I don't know if there's a cupcake in my fridge. Until I open my fridge I remain an agnostic on the cupcake question. I can't be bothered to go look though, cause I live alone and I haven't bought any cupcakes in ages, and I'm fairly certain there is no cupcake in my fridge, so I don't believe I have any cupcake in there. I'm a cupcake atheist. But maybe, a friend of mine snuck some cupcake in there while I wasn't looking, for whatever retarded reason. Or for whatever reason some cupcake spawned in there, by pure chance for the sake of argument. It's very much unlikely, but still, it could be an option. Can't be sure of it until I get to open the fridge.

You misunderstood. The claim I was making was not that there is nothing fallacious about sheltering a private belief you know to be false. (Although, I will withhold judgement as to the veracity of that claim, on the grounds that it's irrelevant. I don't like to make truth judgements I don't strictly need to; I feel it rots the brain.)

The claim I was making was that there is nothing fallacious about sheltering a private belief you do NOT know to be false OR true, and are well aware you will NEVER know to be false (though it is possible you might one day know it to be true.)

Some claims are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. The claim of God's existence, however, is strictly unfalsifiable; no matter what scientific evidence comes to light, I will always be able to conceive of some notion of God that does not contradict it, but if scientific evidence OF the veracity of some certain notion of God ever came to light, then I would know for sure that God exists, and be unable to conceive of an interpretation in which He does not.

Please be bait.

You're a bible thumper.

But you make a good point.

But you're a bible thumper.


... I am so conflicted right now.

>Agnostic
>a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
>Atheist
>a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

agnostic atheist
a person who disbelieves in god, but believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

EG: Look, if I were a betting man I'd bet that there was no god. But frankly it's just an educated guess without any scientific backing to support my belief... I could be wrong.

Not hard to understand how words go together..

I'm actually familiar with Gaunilo and his critique of Anselm, although admittedly it has been some time since I learned the in-and-out of its nature. So it seems that we have both come unprepared, which should serve as a lesson for the future perhaps. But his perfect island scenario does make a great deal of sense. There is one aspect that leaves me curious, however.

Let's assume for starters that God is infinitely powerful. If, in the future, another god could come along and be more powerful than the last, or more perfect, how does such an entity succeed past "infinite" power? Although "infinity" is more of a concept than an actual number, we know that infinity + 1 would still be infinity. How would the nature of the next, more perfect god differ from the last?

Although perhaps it is better to see the god as being more perfect than the current one in the sense of morality. We take issue with the current image of the Christian god in this sense very often. Letting child rapists exist and do their evil and not suffer punishment until the end of their lives? What benevolent god could possibly allow these events to unfold? So my idea of a more perfect god would be one that is more in line with the current ethical doctrines that humanity currently holds. Although this does pose another problem, because the nature of morality concerning its subjective, objective, absolute, or situational nature is still extremely under debate, so it's hard to truly say which ethical doctrine this "more perfect" god would adhere to. Or, perhaps, this shows that there is no such thing as a perfect god, because the fluidity of morality ensures that no god will ever satisfy the ethical expectations of every human being on Earth, and therefore is not perfect. The only way this would be possible is if morality were of objective nature, and if I'm being honest, I can't say I'm very confident in objective morality.