Can Atheists and Theists find common ground as Agnostics?

LOL… Just because he does not come down at your request means nothing. You’re delusional. You made the assertion. Just because something does not act on your whim, does not mean you get to define it. You made the assertion now provide the evidence.

I see God every day. Prove me wrong.

You’re just making inane assertions. Demonstrate your point. The fact that I see God and you don’t is a deficit on your part, not on mine. If you were not as ignorant as you are, your eyes would be opened.

And what a well-traveled individual, to be at all points in the universe. Wow! You are just like God. The difference is that I can see him here with me now, and you are nowhere to be seen.

Are you a troll?
Prove it.

Oh I would never deny that you can’t see your God. I’m fairly sure you talk to your God everyday just as I did with mine when I was a Christian untill I dropped my particular mental puppet that i once called God.

So sure God is exclusively yours as my God was exclusively mine, but you and me both know that there was never any actual physical interaction, but rather a mental interaction all going on inside your head through means of said intercession and prayer just like I did when I was a Christian, as is the case with pretty much every Christian, or any theistic religion for that matter, who adopts their own custom version of God.

So I’m quite happy to say I agree with you, but with one small cavat that this is something that is always going to be inside you, existing, alive and kicking to your heart’s content for sure, with the only thing that it’s just not going to ever be outside the mental realm and will never interact with other people in any physical way because it just dosent exist in the real world. Just in the mental realm inside a persons head.

Your God is most certainly your own personal God, and it’s nobody else’s, because it only lives and thrives soley in your own mental realm where it firmly remains as is the case with anyone else with their spiritual puppet they adopt as a companion and guide.

There are literally thousands of deities humans have imagined to be real, and some are unfalsifiable concepts, hence we can know nothing about such concepts, in those instances one would need to be agnostic, by definition.

You’ve searched the entire universe? You keep doing this, making risibly facile sweeping claims you cannot support. Like your claim to know what evidence will be available in the future. You’re simply giving ammunition to any apologist, they will leap on such claims.

It is if the concept is unfalsifiable, you do know what unfalsifiable means right, only this has been explained a few times now, and you seem to be ignoring it?

You’re wrong, and you’re still misinterpreting what the word means. By definition an agnostic cannot know whether the concept is possible or not. I have explained already that one can be an agnostic about some concepts of deity, and not about others, as am I, and I am an atheist, as I disbelieve them all. I do not believe any deity is possible, since no one has demonstrated any objective evidence they are.

Back to predicting the future again, oh dear.

Your perspective was clear from the first, you’re not the first person to present this facile and erroneous notion of agnosticism, though granted it’s usually theists who do this to reverse their burden of proof, you are simply handing them that as a gift, and we have seen other atheists come here with the same facile hyperbole. It’s poorly reasoned and demonstrates a lack of understanding of both epistemology and informal logic.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again.

I don’t believe in any deity or deities, but since you have made a claim please demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support that claim, which carries an epistemological burden of proof, and we will need something more than “because I believe it to be so” or “because there is no evidence to contradict it”, which is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Oh dear, searched it have you? This is risibly poor argument again. Try, I have no objective reason to believe any deity or deities exist, that covers the universe, and doesn’t make silly sweeping hyperbolic claims, that are poorly reasoned and will have any intelligent apologists ripping you a new one.

You keep doing this, making claims you have no chance of demonstrating are true. You’re arguments ironically are no different to the kind of hubris and hyperbole we see thests and religious apologists use.

Your claim included the entire universe though, and you have not “looked out” into that have you, and how do you know this deity concept is visible or even detectable in any empirical way?

Evidence that claim please.

Evidence that claim please.

They’re not mutually exclusive in my experience. Nothing feeds arrogance like ignorance.

I think you mean to say did not exist, and that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, as I explained this argument is irrational by definition. Do you imagine ignoring the fact your argument is irrational and contains a known logical fallacy will go away if you ignore it? The posters here will see such errors in reasoning, even if you want to pretend it hasn’t happened.

I would disbelieve it, but could not claim it was untrue based solely on a lack of evidence to support it, as that would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Until you learn what that means, and the epistemological difference between disbelieving a claim, and believing a contrary claim, you will keep (tediously) repeating this error in reasoning.

1 Like

Which is a sound reason to doubt or disbelieve it’s existence, which by definition must reflect objective reality, but is not a sound reason to claim it does not exist, as you cannot evidence that claim.

Lets try one more time then:

Disbelieving a claim (atheism) carries no burden of proof.

Making a contrary claim carries a burden of proof.

If an idea or belief is unfalsifiable, then we cannot know whether it is true or not, and must remain agnostic, though it is perfectly rational to disbelieve such claims.

  1. Do you know what unfalsifiable means?
  2. Do you accept that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive?
  3. Do you accept that concepts of, and claims made about deities, are not all the same, and some are falsifiable and some not?
  4. If you are prepared to believe claims you are making that you cannot demonstrate objective evidence for, on what basis are you disbelieving identical claims by theists? Be specific please…

Atheism is not a claim or belief, it is the lack or absence of a belief in any deity or deities, thus it is a reasonable position if there is no objective evidence for any deity. An atheists position is reasonable only if their arguments are rational, to claim theism is false or disproved because there is no evidence to support it is irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Theism is a claim, and thus carries a burden of proof, so for a theist’s position to be reasonable they must demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their belief, and their arguments must be rational.

Why are you gifting them an irrational argument, when you don’t need to?


It’s obvious that this latest arrival completely ignored my invitation to learn about his errors

1 Like

@Cognostic is an atheist, what he is trying to do is help you understand the epistemological difference between disbelief and making a contrary claim, just as I have been trying to do. You don’t appear to understand or want t understand this, or that typing the word fact after an unevidenced assertion does not make it a fact.

You see that is a bare claim, now care to demonstrate some objective evidence to support this claim, anything beyond the bare assertion at all would be a start? I’d bet my house you revert to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, because you’re not understanding your error.

Again care to objectively evidence this bare claim? You see if you said we only know of one species of evolved ape that believes in deities you’d be on safer ground, but your reasoning is poorly worded and inaccurate, and you need more than a facile understanding of epistemology in order to see it. The question is are you at all open minded, or are you simply the same as theists who are unwilling to have their beliefs and ideas subjected to critically scrutiny and simply repeat their claims and handwave away rational objections?

1 Like

An argument presented in a form such that it can never be shown to be false. An unfalsifiable argument can be qualified and amended at will. For instance, the statement “faith can move mountains ” is unfalsifiable: if you cannot move mountains, that only shows that you haven’t enough faith.

1 Like

Good example, and yes, if something cannot be falsified (even were it to be false) then it is unfalsifiable, and we have to remain agnostic about such claims, though the only rational position is also to disbelieve them all, as it avoids bias and accepting contradictory claims.

Well, first, you’ve not demonstrated this to be the case. Second, there are animal species other than human that indicate belief systems and appear to perform rituals. It’s not a big leap to consider they may have some forms (and there are many) of religion. Thirdly, there are, in fact, gods that we can observe. The sun, for instance, is real and has been worshipped, thought of, and called a god.

1 Like

Oh I certainly read it and do appreciate your contribution I just found no need to address it at this time.


Personally I think agnostic is a contentional and fairly inadequate and useless term to use wrapping oneself in pointless academia and reading about formal debating rules won’t change the fact that agnosticism is a problematic because it doesn’t the facts of the matter as things stand.

Id recommend as in the past to get one’s head out of the books and open a window and take a breath a fresh air and look at what’s actually going on around you.

It does explain why I’m being attacked here on my perspective which is disappointing. I have taken an atheist form to be much more civil in its discourse as opposed to other forums out there.

What is the point in just repeating your subjective opinion, you need to address what is actually said, along with any pertinent facts.

I see no facts there, and that is gibberish sorry? You also interjected and quoted my response to someone else’s post, but failed to address a single word I said. Here it is again then, see if you offer a something cogent in response:

I’d recommend you drop the sententious tone, and stop ignoring posts in order to use ad hominem fallacies. Address the arguments, and not the person making them. You’re playing the man, and not the ball…

No one has attacked you, stop being so precious, this is a debate forum, if you don’t want your claims and arguments to be submitted to critical scrutiny, and prefer an echo chamber, then I can only suggest you don’t offer them for debate, or you could learn how to create arguments that don’t involve subjective unevidenced and irrational claims, and erroneous semantics that are odds with the dictionary.

You might also do people the courtesy of addressing what they write, when they have taken the time to offer expansive reponses to help you understand your argument are very poorly reasoned. Or crack on, it’s nothing to me if you don’t care that your claims are demonstrably irrational and unevidenced, and this a gift to any religious apologists you offer them to.

From your first link:

"Atheists who…claim to know that no gods exist have the burden of explaining how they obtained knowledge which would seem to require godlike omniscience given the vastness of time and space. There is also the amorphous definition of gods to consider and the fundamental principle of scientific thinking that requires us to keep the door slightly ajar for unlikely and unexpected discoveries. Absence of belief is enough. Atheists who persist in claiming to “know” that no gods of any kind exist anywhere ever have embraced a faith-based position."

Something of an own goal linking that, given you have repeatedly made precisely such claims. That authors views on agnosticism are more nuanced than yours for sure:

“Some atheists further muddle things by describing themselves as agnostic, a label that is insufficient and irrelevant in most contexts.

So not in all contexts then, precisely as I have been trying to help you understand, maybe you should read links carefully before posting them? I am an atheist, and only agnostic when that is the rational position, and am presented with god claims that are unfalsifiable. This may “muddle things” for people incapable of more than a facile grasp of epistemology and logic, but that is hardly my problem.

From your second link:

“Atheists (vs. agnostics) may be more emotionally stable and rigorous thinkers but less flexible about their ideas or interested in others’ views.”

So understanding when as an atheist it was rational to also be an agnostic, demonstrates one is more flexible about the ideas of others, and interested in others’ views, that would explain why your views are so entrenched and strident, despite being unsupported by any objective evidence or rational arguments.

Then there was this form your second link:

“Agnostic, atheist, antireligious, spiritual but not religious, and non-believer are some of the terms used to refer to people who are not religious or do not believe in God.”

“In short, agnostics resembled atheists in terms of curiosity and logical reasoning, but were less dogmatic and more neurotic, prosocial, and spiritual.”

You really ought to have read it all before posting it, as it clearly does not support your position either. I cannot objectively comment on how prosocial or neurotic I am, maybe drop my ex-wife a line she’d love that, but I can state I am not at all spiritual if it is being defined as in any way supernatural or having any supernatural cause or component, which I do not believe exist or are possible. NB I don’t “know” they are impossible or don’t exist, nor do I claim to know this, so in it’s most broad or generic sense I would also have to remain agnostic about such a claim.

Levity aside, that was a fairly small test group, and from one study, and though it didn;t support your position at all, it also failed to include atheists who also identify as agnostics when that is the rational position, i.e. when confronted with unfalsifiable claims.

I win! Your wrong. Great job of backpeddling. How far you gonna move those goalposts. Now you are saying exactly what I have been saying all along.

Your wrong. We don’t both Know that. In fact, getting to that, generally requires work, effort, and education. Things most ‘believers’ do not have. On top of that, no amount of logic or reason will pull them from their belief because they KNOW the feelings they get during worship and while talking to the Lord are real. We both know the feelings are real but question the source.

No, two people get that mushy feeling of awe that is said to be inspired by the Holy Ghosh, while looking at a sunset. One person says the origins of the feeling are from the God thing and the other says they are self generated. Demonstrate how you completely debunk the god claim;. Prove the god claim to be 100% false. (Keep sliding those goalposts… It can not be done.) If you think you can do it, you are as delusional as the Christian.

You cannot demonstrate it is only a mental state. (I happen to agree that it is a mental state. I might even argue that it is a mental state. The argument does nothing to dissway a person from the REALITY of their belief: their KNOWLEDGE of god. They hold onto the knowledge for the very reason I have cited. To challenge the knowledge would be a life altering event. Hence, they scrape and claw to hang onto that which they ‘KNOW’ to be true. You are arguing for some objective truth out there, and honestly you can not know that 100%. You can not know that there is not a god in the universe someplace. Now, while I am 99.9% sure, in my own mind, that no such entity exists based on 2000 years of failed gods and apologetics, that is not “Proof.” It is an overwhelming amount of ‘evidence’ but not ‘proof.’

You’ve almost got it right. My mind and brain are open to the idea of god and so, unlike the walls you have constructed around yours, I am capable of seeing the truth. Your argument fails. It is something only those of your own ilk believe and hold to be true. It does nothing for the religious minded and the reason they are still religious minded is that your argument has not even come close to addressing their KNOWLEDGE of god. You are just wrong. Your assumeptions are eronious.

Just keep sliding those goalposts and you’re going to get there. Agnosticism is being completely honest. People who do not know believe in God. Atheists are agnostic about the existence of God or gods. Agnosticism is about 'Knowledge" what you hold to be true. Atheism is about belief, what you believe to be true. Knowledge is a belief held to such a degree that it would be life altering were it to be demonstrated as false. (Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. It is how we make sense of the world around us: what we hold to be true. A wise man proportions his belief to the available evidence.)

You have a faulty definition of Agnostic, and probably of ‘atheist.’ You are delusional when it comes to all the possibilities of God. The most you can say about the existence of the god thing is that you have not yet heard a good argument or seen good evidence for its existence. You get to assert that you think it is only a mind thing, but you can no more demonstrate this than you can demonstrate the nonexistence of god. Everything is a mind thing. All information goes through our mind. The fact that I am privy to information you don’t have says more about you than it does about me. (In the Christian mind.)

Believer: one who believes in the existence of god.
Agnostic: " Agnostic: A problematic and inadequate term best avoided. It is based on the dubious claim that the existence of gods is unknowable."* (IMPORTANT – (i.e. a person who claims knowledge that no gods exist) and is impractical in most contexts because it fails to identify a person’s state of belief or nonbelief. IT FAILS TO ADDRESS BELIEF ---- IT FAILS TO ADDRESS BELIEF ------ IT FAILS TO ADDRESS BELIEF ----- ARE YOU READING THIS? IS ANYTHING SINKING IN. Agnosticism does not respond to the question: “What do you believe.”
Atheist: one who does not believe in the existence of god.

Agnostic is clearly defined as A dubious claim.* not to be relied upon / suspect.

Here is the issue. You have some weird definition of agnostic. A= without Gnosis = knowledge. Agnostic is without 'Knowledge of God or gods." They do not hold a god belief to such a degree that it would be life-altering were it to be demonstrated wrong. As Pascal and the Bible point out, it is okay to be a Doubting Thomas as long as you still believe. An atheist can not know to a degree of 100% certainty that there is not something in the universe or beyond that is akin to a God. This makes both Christians and Atheists Agnostic. The term is dubious because it applies to everyone. Argue the facts out of a Christian and you will get to the core of his or her belief ('IT TAKES FAITH.) Argue the facts out of an Atheist and you will get to the core (There just isn’t any good evidence.) Both are Agnostic. The agnostic claim is dubious.

Do I even need to read the second article?

1 Like

LOL… You can not demonstrate a tooth fairy does not exist. You may accept that it does not but you can not demonstrate it. If I assert I know the tooth fairy exists because I saw her collecting teeth, you can not demonstrate I am wrong. You can only assert that I am wrong. (There is a difference.)


He doesn’t get it, and you will note his question was suitably vague, he is parroting an erroneous misconception of agnosticism. I don’t understand why people don’t check a dictionary, it has to be the easiest fact checking you’ll ever do, but I do know it does not bode well, if they can’t be bothered to take the few seconds to check a word definition. It does suggest a closed mind, especially since he seems to be either completely ignoring arguments, or responding with handwaving.

1 Like

" The most common self-definition of atheists would be “someone who does not believe in any god”. That’s not a claim of knowledge, it’s a claim of belief. Those are different. And it’s perfectly compatible with agnosticism.

I am an agnostic atheist. I accept that I cannot know if there is a god or not, but after evaluating the evidence, find the existence of any god unlikely and therefore don’t believe in any."


This guy has been filching my posts… :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :smirk: Look at this now:

“Theists like to define atheism and agnosticism differently to avoid having to deal with reasonable counterarguments. They say that besides theists there is only people who are 100% sure that there are no gods, which is just as unreasonable as the claim that there is a god, and people who cannot make up their minds if they believe in a god or not, which does not contain a claim of disbelief. They have with that created an illusionary world where there only are theists, the undecided and the unreasonable. They ignore the only rational position in the debate: agnostic atheism. They have to because that position does not provide any attack surface. They would have to provide objective evidence for their religious claims to counter it. Which they for some strange reason can’t, either because their God made it very sure not to leave any behind or because he simply does not exist.”

I swear I’ve never heard of that guy in my life…


"Agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. 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 divine entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

I am as always open to counterarguments, and will give any facts, or arguments due diligence, I can do nothing with subjective rhetoric, and dishonest semantics based on unevidenced subjective personal experience, just like irrational arguments will be exposed as such.

1 Like

Or read the article he posted… I read the same article he posted, and it clearly explained the exact same thing we are saying. He is so stuck on his definition that he can not see what is right in front of his face.


Cannot or will not?

1 Like