This should help, Gnostic vs. Agnostic Atheism

So, no, your typical atheist does not hold the same faith as a believer. We do not believe that a higher exists because there is no evidence to suggest so. This far removed saying that we *know* and are *certain* that no god exists.

So.... yeah. Maybe we won't hear of such ridiculousness in the future? We can only hope.

 

So, in other words, in order to avoid the burden of proof atheists will make up excuses.

The issue is that atheists conclude there is no God or God is not probable - that still requires one to support it.

Not too mention, posting four possibilities with no evidence or polling to indicate where atheists actually fall on the scale, while claiming MOST, is inherently flawed.

Its right back where we started. What do atheists believe? Well, that depends on who is asking - a lack of standards. Apparently most atheists believe in all four.

 

So the Gnostic Gnows there is gNO gOD.

Have you ever asked ONE of them, if nature itself could be the identifier called 'god'?

of would it take one of the magical tornados or perhaps a hurricane named 'god' to shake up a person to kind of appreciate 'nature' (god)?

I know i am happy to wake up each day and experience life while here in heaven. (the garden itself)

Excuse me, while i Kiss the sky!

 

Again, a reminder to excuse seeking atheists: YOU HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF.

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context.

We often take the atheists claim of rationality for granted, incorrectly, and assume that atheists are familiar enough with logic that their statements will not be deliberately illogical. Yet the constant demand for proof, coupled with the failure to lay out any of their own – despite the ‘logic’ of their claim is a continuous demonstration of the opposite of the supposed claim to rationality.

Here is why.

First, there is knowing what a logical argument is:

"One must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For more, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/logic.html

The specific of the burden of proof lies in a portion of what is often highlighted by atheists but, equally often, completely ignored.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Yes, it is indeed true that this statement is a fallacy.

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

It is why most logical Christians could more accurately be quoted as saying:

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He MIGHT."

It is also why we list things like miracles, answered prayers, calling, and strong, patterns in the universe that indicate purpose rather than accident, and other circumstantial evidence to back up the claim as required by the burden of proof. We also acknowledge that the belief in God is not totally logical, that is requires faith - an exception required by the dictates of logic.

We are also aware of something called the middle ground fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...le-ground.html

It is listed on the same source, and applies directly to the 'in most cases' so often ignored by atheists who offer the burden of proof exemption to their claim.

It is best explained here:

"For example, in the philosophical debate between Theism and Atheism (to some, Strong atheism), theism posits that the nonexistence of God has not been demonstrated and therefore God must exist. This is a burden of proof fallacy. Atheism in turn points out this fallacy and claims that its position is therefore stronger. This is a fallacious defense. In actuality, both positions have a burden of proof, since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this scenario."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/...l_fallacy).htm

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.”
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.”

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

Funny that I have long stated that conclusion regarding logic and the debate over God.

And as you can clearly see, based upon the full application of the rules of logic, rather then partical and deliberately non-contextual application thereof, the burden of proof is still a requirement for those claiming that God does not exist.

I hope that explanation is detailed enough to finally bury that pernicious atheist claim.

 

Fine illustration. And no, the ridiculousness is here to stay


By the way, I have a principal problem with the asterix'ed statement below in the diagram. Claiming gnosis is actually a weaker position than agnosis as it exposes the theist or atheist to an unsolvable epistemological problem. But everything is relative, I suppose.

 

Fine illustration. And no, the ridiculousness is here to stay


By the way, I have a principal problem with the asterix'ed statement below in the diagram. Claiming gnosis is actually a weaker position than agnosis as it exposes the theist or atheist to an unsolvable epistemological problem. But everything is relative, I suppose.

 

Notice once again how the atheist fails to indicate where exactly he falls on the scale and offers no support - just conclusions.

After all, who needs evidence when you already know you're right.

 

Are you claiming that the typical atheist is an agnostic atheist? What is your evidence of that?

 

An agnostic atheist doesn't have a belief in any gods because those beliefs would be unwarranted, meaning no evidence.

 

So if the OP is claiming that most atheists are agnostic atheists, why then do so many of them parade their opinions around like gnostic atheists; condemning and attacking theists and theism? Like Richard Dawkins for example who laughably considers himself a scientist despite his self-admitted personal crusade against religion.

A truly agnostic atheist should be be considerably open to the possibility of being wrong since their whole belief system is admittedly built on a house of cards. Thus any militant atheist activism is rooted in pure faith and holds no more logical weight than gnostic theism.

 

We are open to the possibility of being wrong. However, we rely on evidence to gauge the certainty of our beliefs. If there is no evidence for any of the religions being true, of course we are going to reject those religions. We do the same thing for scientific theories. There is a reason we come out against theists, though. If you are truly unable to see the dangers that theists have wrought on this world, then you are a blind man.

 

Richard Dawkins is a highly respected scientist. He also labels himself as an agnostic atheist. He admits to the possibility of being wrong. However, this doesn't mean that he, and the rest of us agnostic atheists, think that we should just shut up and let our lives be dictated to us by the gnostic theists.

 

Beat me to it. Dawkins does not claim that there absolutely is not a god, simply there is not evidence for a god.

Dawkins arguments against religion are not against any and all religion, but beliefs that are used to justify human atrocities and human ignorance.

This is painfully obvious to anyone who has read Dawkins work, with is something very few theists have bothered with. They prefer the slanted regurgitation of their favorite Christians websites and newsletters to tell them what to think about Dawkins.

 

Whiney super victim.

Dawkins published work is not respected science. Its anything but science.

And there is one key portion of the entire agnostic atheist BS rap: The belief is still a conclusion that rests upon no evidence - because there apparently is none. Except that there is plenty of it - and atheists don't believe anyway.

So, lets test the hypothesis of agnostic atheism and see if it holds water.

#1 - would agnostic theism work? I believe in God because there is just no evidence NOT to believe in God?

No atheist would ever accept such a stupid line of reasoning, but here we are supposed to pretend not only that its reasonable, but that those who disagree with it are oppressive religious tyrants.

#2 - Agnostic atheists have no burden of proof because .... they say so. A self fulfilling prediction if ever there was one.

So why have atheists concluded that there is no God?

a. There is no God because they have no burden of proof.

b. There is no evidence for God (but what they really mean is that anything you present might possibly, however ludicriously, be something else).

c. They are serially misunderstood, always being told by theists what they believe - even though they cannot clarify what exactly it is they believe.

d. Because they are scientists. (Just like a lot of religious people).

So, therefore, all is solved.

 

Nobody is saying there is no God. In fact, that was one of the main points of this thread I believe.

Puhlease, the evidence that creationists use is badly misunderstood by them. For example, I have encountered people that claim that fossils found on mountains is evidence of a worldwide flood. What these people conveniently ignore is the other findings of science which directly contradict that view.

Yeah, we don't know what we believe but people that aren't us, like you, definitely know what we believe.

 

Short and precise

 

I am an agnostic theist... I think your graph is a little off...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Types of agnosticismAgnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[16]

Ignosticism The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[17] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

 

And that is the biggest bunch of BS that anyone ever wrote.

Whether you just believe there is no God, or whether you are certain, the conclusion is the same: no God.

You still have a burden of proof, and the fact that atheists invented the idea of agnostic atheism just to get around the burden of proof is ludicrious.

Why are you an atheist? I'm not, I am an agnostic atheist.

And you have a problem with that, but not with someone who makes BS claims like agnostic atheism? Why do you think I am against both?

That's funny, because here I am directly quoting atheists, but, once again, yoru beliefs are not represented accurately - because only YOU know what they are and everyone else it too stupid to know what they are.

Sound like a creationist? Same logic.

 

All of which require a burden of proof.

 

That means Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Anubis, Ahto, Vishnu and Cthulhu all have the same chance of existing as Yahweh (God) since to disprove them would require the same burden of proof. Does that mean if I claim myself to be God, you would have the same burden of proof to prove me wrong?

Heck, under that logic, even Santa Clause and Leprechauns cannot be dismissed as fantasy. In fact one could say that by using that logic everything is possible and nothing impossible.

I would love to live in a world where anything is possible...

"You see your honor, since you cannot prove that a denizine of hell didn't suddenly appear and stole the money in question and then magically created evidence to implicate my client, you have no choice but to let my client free"

 

i don't mean to be offensive, i know you just put a
chart and sub-categorized notions to make things more explicit.

but i think all things come down to this:
ever observed an agnostic or an atheist when the plane is falling?
maybe one would have a -less fancy yet- more honest diagram,
if (s)he witnessed that.

1) people who hide their natural tendency
2) people who embrace it
3) people who embrace it in darkness (hardship),
then hide it when the lights are on (blessing).

* "they commit injustice upon the earth without right" means
"they rebel (disobey Allah) in the earth wrongfully".

 

Well, technically no one can truly say they KNOW God doesn't exist just as they say they KNOW He does. One can only believe and have FAITH.

 

EXACTLY! Certainty is the antithesis of faith. If you have no faith, ten how can you be religious?

 

Because the standpoint of believing in something, for which there is zero evidence is crazy?

I'll quote Dawkins:

An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

 

And yet, post after post, thread after thread, you fail to demonstrate that evidence. Sure, you post links to other people's work, but you never give us your opinion and your words. We on the other other hand often do so. We do not link to Dawkins' web site and say "read this", we give our opinion.

Something you fail to do each day when challenged.