Can Atheists and Theists find common ground as Agnostics?

Debate Room
41

I loved the expression, “Let go of the god concept.” It hits atheism right between the eyes and is so much better that the atheists who come in here stating they have converted to atheism. As if atheism is a belief system one can convert to.

I would challenge your dropping of the agnostic label. I understand you dropped the label but what you dropped was not agnosticism, but rather your idea of agnosticism at the time. I think you will find most atheists are 'Agnostic Athiests." They do not believe in god or gods for the reason that there is no available knowledge supporting these ideas. Again, reference the diagram that has been posted twice now.

ATHEIST vs AGNOSTIC
ATHEIST vs AGNOSTIC1000×503 181 KB

42

This depends on the concept of a deity.

No it doesn’t, agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about god, and again might be possible is semantically identical to might not be possible. An agnostic would not know if a deity were possible or not, by definition.

The words agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, but they have different meanings. One is a belief about the limits of epistemology (specifically regarding deities), and the other the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

1 Like
43

Not believing in a god is not the same thing as professing no gods exist. Sheldon was 100% correct –

Some gods can be demonstrated not to exist. This is why we ask theists what god they are talking about. It is a very simple matter to debunk the god of the Bible. That’s why not Christian apologist ever tries to defend the god of the bible. The apologist god is always some omnipotent being that exists beyond time and space and is all-loving. (Not jealous, murderous, butchering piece of shit that is in the bible.)

A god that is ‘just’ can not be ‘merciful.’ It is a logical contradiction. The god of the bible is ‘Just’ and ‘Merciful.’ it can not exist. Mercy is the suspension of justice. One can not be merciful and just at the same time. This god does not exist. (There are many positions like this regarding the biblical God.) God can not have a plan or be all-knowing and at the same time, give man free will. (It’s a logical contradiction) The more attributes one gives to his or her god, the easier it is to demonstrate that god does not exist.

That does not mean all gods do not exist. Neither you nor I have been presented with all gods. The best we can say is that we have yet to hear a good argument. or yet to see good evidence, for the existence of a god.

For all intents and purposes, I believe there is no such thing as a god. That is not the same thing as saying no gods exist. I also believe no gods exist, but I would be hard-pressed to prove it, and I don’t have to prove it. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. I don’t have to make the claim 'No gods exist." This is a red herring and a position the theists love putting me in. A shifting of the burden of proof. “When a theist asserts, you can not prove god does not exist.” Well, that depends. I need to know specifically what god they are talking about. I can disprove some gods. I’m not silly enough to imagine I can disprove all of them. HINT: No one can! That is one of the reasons religions survive.

2 Likes
44

I can certainly prove that no Gods at all exist because those who claim a God exists has the complete inability to even produce the proof of their claim in any way making my statement that no gods exist true.

Its really super easy on my part. All I got to do is make that statement that reflects whats already true, but it’s unusually hard for any theist to prove their claim because they simply can’t prove it in any way leaving myself and others like myself 100% correct each and every time.

I can be proven wrong of course by somebody actually pointing out where exactly God is , so I and others can see for myself , but I’m sure fairly deep down, you already know that its just not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow , not ever.

The statement that God dosent exist is factually true, with maybe perhaps one caveat by which god does exist only within people’s minds, fantasy, and imagination. Maybe in that respect , i could be proven wrong by me leaving out the mental aspect.

But hard atheists will never ever be proven wrong in the waking world because factually it is a completely futile and pointless endeavor for any theist to produce adequate proof of god in any capacity , which holds true to this very moment of this posting and into the future simply by the fact you cant proove what actually isnt there.

45

That looks for all the world like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me.

In it’s broadest concept god claims become unfalsifiable, thus no one can say that statement is factually true, the best anyone can say is that there is no objective evidence any deity exists outside the imagination of those who believe in them, and thus withhold belief from the claim.

Hmm, you seem a) to be predicting the future, and b) claiming that not being able to disprove a claim makes it true, which is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

That is a circular reasoning fallacy…you are simply assuming your conclusion in your opening premise.

Do you expect anyone to take seriously claims you can predict the future?

46

I’m actually pretty confident that theists will never ever be able to produce any God whatsoever only because this has been going on since the dawn of mankind when early man started inventing all kinds of God’s and deities and what not.

The reason they don’t exist is because I , as well as many other observant atheists already know where all the gods come from, and that’s from the human mind entertaining fantasy and Imagination.

So it’s not like the answer isn’t already obvious at the forefront , but I would tell any theists to please do continue and I’ll just sit comfortably in my lawn chair and wait for the results.

47

Oh rest assured I can’t predict the future, but I can certainly observe the past and present and the established facts that lay before me to which everything that has been associated with God’s angels deities and what not will always and always
will be exclusively sourced from human beings via one’s imaginations, and fantasy.

Also the complete inability for any person, existing or long passed , to prove the supernatural or anything of a divine nature also serves as solid evidence that the truth is by far obvious and clear on that matter. It never was proven back then, and it certainly never will be now.

I’m sure there’s a lot of amazing things out there that hasnt been discovered in the universe, but it’s certainly not going to be the gods that people are speaking of today in any way shape or form.

Are you sure you’re an atheist BTW? You dont sound like one.

48

.

Yet you keep making assertions as if you can?

What does an atheist sound like? I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, that’s the definition of an atheist, not indulging in unevidenced and sweeping hyperbole as if they can predict the future.

1 Like
50

That’s because you obviously show a lack of confidence , and I’m still not convinced you’re an atheist but an agnostic, but I’ll take your word on it provisionally regardless.

I on the other hand am completely confident given the solid long established fact that since the dawn of mankind up to the present moment, theists have the complete inability to point out the object of their claims , making it easy for the statement to be made that there are no gods , to be entirely accurate, factual, and conclusive.

That coupled with the fact that theists will never be able to prove the object of their claims isnt a prediction into the future, but a continuation of the fact that theists will never ever prove there is a god as they claim there is.

51

Nope, I am sure I don’t believe in any deity or deities, you’re confusing hubris and hyperbole with confidence as well. I am very careful not to make claims where I can’t meet the epistemological burden of proof. It would be closed minded to demand theists meet theirs, and then ignoring that standard for my own claims.

No offence, but I couldn’t care less what you’re convinced of, you need to learn what the words mean first, before telling others what they do and do not believe, and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, if you don’t even know that, then your hubris in claiming you know the future is risible. In fact it’s risible anyway.

You keep quoting this straw man, but since I am an atheist I have not disagreed. There is however a difference between pointing to a dearth of objective evidence for any deity, and making a claim no deity exists, and making absolute claims about future evidence is risible hyperbole. It also gives dishonest religious apologists who come here trying to reverse the burden of proof ammunition that is an unnecessary gift.

This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I explained this already, you seem to be simply repeating the fallacy?

That is exactly what it is.

That’s just a tautology, you are denying you have made a prediction about the future, by repeating that prediction. Your arguments are irrational, and so your reasoning poor, and you’re trying to pretend hubris is confidence, and hyperbole is fact.

52

For an atheist you sure know how to defend the possibilities for theism.

Ill just sit patiently by however, and wait till my conclusions are proven wrong.

53

I’m starting to think English is not your first language, but I will keep an open mind. Please quote me anywhere remotely asserting that any deity is possible?

Quietly ignoring your use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and quietly claiming you know the future…impressive…so do you use crystals, or a ball, or maybe a ouija board to look into the future, or do you just use the force?

54

It doesn’t help much when I’m right all along, not because of me , but because of the way things actually are.

I would suggest getting out of the books for a while and just look around you and determine for yourself what is case in fact first hand.

55

@CoffeeBean, you haven’t been here for very long so haven’t had much of an opportunity to learn that folks here who are long-time, regular posters will often call out anything they consider challengeable. It’s not personal.

1 Like
56

Nor would i personally take offense at such challenges. :0)

I think it has to do with how the subject is being approached. Some go through books and resource materials quoting various definitions and general academia, whereas I look more directly at history and actuality involving people’s claims, and if such claims have actually been validated or not.

I’m not against academia or proper resource material citing various definitions , but sometimes a person can get lost in it if he or she does not actually look out the window once in a while to stay in focus.

57

I suppose this could happen. However, is it possible to determine, as fact, that any given poster in an online forum with whom one has had an exchange of a handful of posts is doing so?

58

That’s vapid rhetoric, you were demonstrably wrong since your claims were at odds with the dictionary, and your arguments irrational (as I demonstrated), and you laughably tried to claim to know the future. This isn’t only about being right though, it’s about having the integrity to admit when you’re wrong.

There are people who hide behind a misconception of agnosticisms of course, but that doesn’t change what the word means. We see theists and religious apologists try to peddle this one all the time, along with comparable semantics that try to present atheism as a claim or belief.

I would suggest you stop mimicking theists, with unevidenced hyperbole, and irrational arguments, and also have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong.

Like there, unless you can demonstrate a single example of me remotely claiming a deity is possible.

Or there, where you used an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and seem to think handwaving is a credible response.

Or there where you claim to know what will happen in the future.

Or there where you resorted to an ad hominem fallacy.

Dictionary definitions reflect common usage, so if one makes a sweeping claim that is at odds with it, then they’re wrong.

That statement is factually wrong, since one cannot claim to be an agnostic, and claim to know a deity is possible. I am an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, this includes deities, and I am an atheist, and I won’t believe anything is possible until it is demonstrated to be so, with sufficient objective evidence, and this includes claims for deities. Parenthetically I cannot claim deities are not possible, as I would need sufficient objective evidence to believe that as well.

59

Ahem, go to this earlier post of mine and learn why your assertion is completely and utterly wrong. Which I demonstrate in detail.

1 Like
60

Lack of evidence is only evidence of lack when that evidence is to be logically expected. You cannot disprove deism. (That is a fact.) Deism is the belief in a sole creator god who set the universe in motion according to nature’s laws and then left it to run on its own.

Demonstrate the deistic god does not exist.

1 Like
61

Is he still trying to redefine agnosticism? Is that still what all this is about? DUDE! Is there no limit to your ignorance?

You are learning something very valuable as an atheist. When you ask someone, “Do you believe in God.” and they respond “I am agnostic.” They have not answered your question. They are avoiding the question completely. Your are completely justified in responding “I did not ask you what you knew. I asked you what you believed. Do you believe a god exists. It is a yes or no question.”

Claiming to be an agnostic does not equate to any position at all on the existence of a god.

Do you understand that the Atheist position is the null hypothesis? Not Agnosticism. It is the atheist position that there is no good reason to believe as there is no good evidence. The God hypothesis has not been demonstrated. Not Agnosticism. Agnosticism is about what you KNOW to be true. Not what you BELIEVE. (Knowledge as previously defined: ‘Belief which is held to such a degree that it would be life-altering if it was demonstrated to be wrong.’)

1 Like