Yes. Not sure how this helps you though.
Vanilla and Chocolate are different flavours of ice cream but they are still ice cream. Weak Atheists, Strong Atheists, Agnostic Atheists, De Facto Atheists or whatever name they want to be called have one thing in common - they lack a belief in God and therefore they are Atheists. Like you.
Hmmm
I have no problems waiting for the cites. I have followed numerous threads on the topic in GD and in the pit. I don’t want to put words in Der Trihs’ fingers(maybe he’ll come along and clear it up), but my reading of those threads(as with the OP here) has always been that the definition of the all powerful, all kind, all loving god that some/most christians use, is impossible and that entity CANNOT exist. As for any other types of gods, there is simply no evidence presented to believe that they exist (along with the logical contradictions involved if all of the gods believed in by all cultures exist). However, at no point does anyone claim they just KNOW no gods exist. That’s your caricature of the position taken by atheists.
As for being an agnostic inviting rancour from atheists, sure I see it, but I don’t see why you’re conflating that with their certainty(or lack thereof) in the non-existence of god. Here’s where I think the rancour is coming from -
*Or most agnostics at any rate, and you really can’t call yourself an agnostic and then complain about being clubbed in with them
In GD intellectual rigor trumps sense of community, perhaps they’ve given up vocalizing easily assailable belief systems.
Which is a shame, it’s no fun preaching to the choir…as it were.
I do not find that the weak/strong distinction amounts to anything worth discussing. If it is a conclusion, I don’t know where it follows from; if it is a base principle, I don’t think its implications map to reality.
Obviously I could be wrong about a lot of things. Additionally, when phrased that way, a lot of people would say that you can’t know anything. I believe this is a highly perverse use of the word “to know” and within common use of the word “to know” I know god doesn’t exist, if I know anything. When agnostics state their position, it is unclear to me what standard they are using for the verb “to know,” but what I do know is that it doesn’t map to everyday English. I wish they would pick a different word, because my non-charitable interpretation is that agnostics are engaging in gross equivocation.
That’s part of the point.
Vagary as a philosophy? Interesting.
Now, if agnostics put forth that they cannot know with certainty as to the existence of God, then to be consistent they must make the same declaration when it comes to every other aspect of their lives. They cannot know with absolute certainty who their parents are, what they had for breakfast, what color their underwear is or how many fingers are on their left hand. This absolute certainty when it comes to God is nothing more than an artificial construction, as far as I’m concerned.
That is quite the absurd assertion.
“There is no god” is a statement of faith
“There is no credible evidence of a god” is a true statement, one can be an atheist, who puts no mind to the existence of gods.
This does not mean that the statement “There is no god” will not be testable in the future, it is just not today.
So I ask, where is your evidence there is no god?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Now, if agnostics put forth that they cannot know with certainty as to the existence of God, then to be consistent they must make the same declaration when it comes to every other aspect of their lives. They cannot know with absolute certainty who their parents are, what they had for breakfast, what color their underwear is or how many fingers are on their left hand
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know with absolute certainty who my parents are, what I had for breakfast, and I honestly don’t remember what color underwear I’m currently wearing (I think it’s the leopard striped thong ones, but not sure). I have to go with the best evidence I have in those cases, similar to my stance on the existence, or non-existence of God. I also have to muddle through ridiculous examples like this over and over, but such is life.
I’m sure that as far as you are concerned it is.
-XT
[rubbing hands together gleefully as he falls into my diabolical trap]Please give a complete description of this “god” you wish me to disprove.[/rubbing hands together gleefully as he falls into my diabolical trap].
If someone asks you who your parents are, do you respond with “I don’t know for certain.”? If not, then my examples are not ridiculous at all.
You are the one making the claim as to having knowledge, it is your job to provide an acceptable definition.
It is your responsibly to provide the hypothesis and evidence, I claim to have received no credible evidence to support your claim.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
If someone asks you who your parents are, do you respond with “I don’t know for certain.”? If not, then my examples are not ridiculous at all.
[/QUOTE]
Sure they are, because they aren’t on the same level. If someone asks me ‘Do you know what dark matter is’, then I say ‘No…I’m not even sure there is any such thing, and afaik there is no proof that it exists’. Same with God. Asking me about my parents is a bit closer to home, however, and not in the same league as asking about God…unless I happen to be Jesus, of course. Ask me if I know if there are such things as ghosts and I’m going to give you the same answer as the one I gave you about God…
-XT
Ignoratio elenchi, I have not stated any rejection or lack of evidence proving or disproving the existence of my parents.
emph added…
That’s interesting. A striped leopard.
I’m a Jew, and for obvious reasons hadn’t yet posted in a thread asking agnostics to more precisely state their position.
My knowledge is that no one has brought forth any evidence to cause me to even consider the possibility of gods existing. Therefore, I can say “There is no God” with the same certainty that you can say “There is no Santa Claus.” To ask ask me to provide evidence against something that:
Ignoratio elenchi my foot. I asked if you would say that you known who your parents are if you apply the same standard of absolute certainty that you seem to apply when it comes to the existence of God. In other words, do you apply this standard to any other aspect of your existence, or is this special pleading?
I used to call myself agnostic, but came to realize that to the Christian population, that generally means, “a person who has doubts as to the existence of God, but still entertains the possibility that the Bible could be the word of God.”
Trying to incorporate a nuanced philosophy on life and spirituality into a one-word label only clouds the issue, and leads to a lack of clarity. I don’t believe in the God of the Bible. I don’t believe Jesus was divine. I don’t think that the words in the Bible were inspired by a God. I am an atheist.
The fact that I concede the possibility of some sort of God or God-like being, (or that ‘God’ as inspiration is a real phenomenon, as even sven says) does not mean I am not an atheist, it means I am a human willing to admit and sometimes revel in my own inability to grok the fullness existence.
Agnostic here.
It’s impossible for a bacteria in your blood stream to know that it lives in a sentient person. In the same way, the physical nature of our own existence could leave us blind to higher order beings. The knowledge of our existence is useless to the bacteria and similarly, knowledge of higher beings is worth about as much to us.
. . .