Agnosticism is Dishonesty

[ShootMyMonkey]

I seriously doubt that a large percentage of the self-professed "agnostics" out there are actually taking the position on the basis of any actual survey of what is known nor are they likely to have intensely studied any school of epistemology. Rather, it seems like they deem themselves agnostic out of a desire to avoid the confrontation associated with a firm committal to one side or another. It's a blatant act of cowardice rather than an act of actually standing on a particular ground. Agnostics don't get as much flak from the majority population (who are theists) because they don't specifically say anything about the nonsensicality of theistic beliefs, while atheists do, whether they explicitly deny the possibility of a god or not.

People who say they are agnostic in lieu of being a theist or an atheist are basically making an entire stance out of an argumentum ad temporantiam (False Compromise fallacy).

 

[lrkun]

I seriously doubt that a large percentage of the self-professed "agnostics" out there are actually taking the position on the basis of any actual survey of what is known nor are they likely to have intensely studied any school of epistemology. Rather, it seems like they deem themselves agnostic out of a desire to avoid the confrontation associated with a firm committal to one side or another. It's a blatant act of cowardice rather than an act of actually standing on a particular ground. Agnostics don't get as much flak from the majority population (who are theists) because they don't specifically say anything about the nonsensicality of theistic beliefs, while atheists do, whether they explicitly deny the possibility of a god or not.

People who say they are agnostic in lieu of being a theist or an atheist are basically making an entire stance out of an argumentum ad temporantiam (False Compromise fallacy).

I think those who are agnostic are the smart ones. They're objective atleast. :lol:

 

[DepricatedZero]

I think those who are agnostic are the smart ones. They're objective atleast. :lol:

Not really. If they were being objective they wouldn't try to create a false middle on emotional baggage tied up with propaganda.

edit: I'm talking about shit like this: http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/pagenum/all/

 

[lrkun]

I think those who are agnostic are the smart ones. They're objective atleast. :lol:

Not really. If they were being objective they wouldn't try to create a false middle on emotional baggage tied up with propaganda.

edit: I'm talking about shit like this: http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/pagenum/all/

Ah, well, you weren't particular with your topic, therefore I thought you are criticizing agnostics in general. So you are refering to that.

In short, a particular issue about that website, you should have made that clearer.

I've read that article a long time ago, back then I disagree with some of its content, now I am persuaded to agree with some.

-oOo-

Points to consider.

Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence,the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

This principle may be stated in various ways but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

Huxley originally defined his agnosticism against the claims of religion, but it also applies to the claims of science in its know-it-all mode. I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don't believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything. Agnosticism doesn't contend there are no certainties; it simply resists unwarranted untested or untestable certainties.

Agnosticism doesn't fear uncertainty. It doesn't cling like a child in the dark to the dogmas of orthodox religion or atheism. Agnosticism respects and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being.

Why has agnosticism fallen out of favor? New Atheism offers the glamour of fraudulent rebelliousness, while agnosticism has only the less eye-catching attractions of humility. The willingness to say "I don't know" is less attention-getting than "I know, I know. I know it all."

1. Too much of the rhetoric and sociality is tribal: Us and Them."

So true. The verbal vitriol and vituperation that self-proclaimed New Atheists indulge in in the comments section of crusading atheist and Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins' blog recently caused Dawkins himself, horrified by the not excessively "bright" mob he'd created, to shut down his comments section. (The concern was attacks on my fellow Templeton Cambridge fellow Chris Mooney who is a pro-science atheist but not an "incompatibilist," a nonsense term I don't have the patience to explain but for which they wanted his blood.)

2. [The New Atheism] presumes to know what it cannot. More on this below.

3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, it tries to co-opt Agnosticism as a form of "weak" Atheism. I think people have the right to self-identify as they choose, and I am neither an atheist nor a faith-booster, both charges having been made by atheists (sometimes the same atheists).

Cue James Brown chords: Say it loud! We're agnostic and proud!

4. Knowability: We are all atheist about some things: Christians are Vishnu-atheists, I am a Thor-atheist, and so on. [Which is why the "are you agnostic about fairies?" rejoinder is just dumb.] But it is a long step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Thor) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities. I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that.

Fascinating. He dismisses Catholicism, but he won't deny outright the arguments of a philosophical believer such as Liebniz. I have been following with interest the argument of neo-Leibniz defenders of the existence of God, such as Alvin Plantinga, and his critics, such as John Hick.*

5. But does that mean no *possible* evidence could decide it [existence or nonexistence of God]? That's a much harder argument to make. Huxley thought it was in principle Unknowable, but that's a side effect of too much German Romanticism in his tea. I can conceive of logically possible states of affairs in which a God is knowable, and I can conceive of cases in which it is certain that no God exists.

Wilkins' suggestion is that there are really two claims agnosticism is concerned with is important: Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can know the answer is another. Agnosticism is not for the simple-minded and is not as congenial as atheism and theism are.

The courage to admit we don't know and may never know what we don't know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.

As Errol Morris put it in the conclusion of one his epic multipart New York Times examination of anosognosia,not knowing what we don't know:

We have "the desire but not the wherewithal to make sense of experience. One might easily forsee that this would lead to unending unmitigated frustration and suffering. But here's where self-deception [and] anosognosia ... step in. We wouldn't be able to make sense of anything, but we would never be aware of that fact."

-oOo-

It seems akin to my way of thinking.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Ah, well, you weren't particular with your topic, therefore I thought you are criticizing agnostics in general. So you are refering to that.

In short, a particular issue about that website, you should have made that clearer.

I've read that article a long time ago, back then I disagree with some of its content, now I am persuaded to agree with some.

-oOo-
-oOo-

It seems akin to my way of thinking.

Not just that article.

All thought processes like it.

The opening statement is positively humping the very golden mean fallacy I mentioned earlier. "Agnosticism is not atheism or theism." It also disregards science in a weak-ass attempt to slander atheists, but alas that's beside the point.

Don't assume that because I used that one article as an example, my issue is with that article. If it was, I would have posted about the article, not the topic.

Agnosticism is not a viable religious stance. To claim that it is, is worse than ignorance. I would go so far as to say that it's fundamentalist rhetoric. Fundamentalist Agnosticism. This entire article preaches thought evasion in the guise of "skepticism." There is no in between on theism. You either are a theist or you're not.

Anyone attempting to use such mindless, evasive, dishonest bullshit is contemptible at best. I'd rather sit and talk with Fred Phelps than someone claiming Agnosticism as their stance on religion, because fuck, at least he's not afraid to speak his damn mind. People like Ron Rosenbaum are a lower form of life than even the WBC.

The reason is that agnosticism demands a stop on thinking. It DEMANDS it. It's worse than religion, because at least with Religion there are going to be fuckoffs like us who run off and play with the chemicals and make neat toys that glow - agnosticism masquerades as an enlightened viewpoint by means of declared ignorance.

I'd rather admit I don't know and keep looking, than to declare I can't know and feel smug. Moreover, I'd rather be honest with myself and know what I am and am not, than to try and create random gray areas in my mind.

 

[lrkun]

The opening statement is positively humping the very golden mean fallacy I mentioned earlier. "Agnosticism is not atheism or theism." It also disregards science in a weak-ass attempt to slander atheists, but alas that's beside the point.

Well, it is a position paper. It's purpose is to convince people to join agnosticism. It's supposed to be written that way.

Agnosticism is not a viable religious stance. To claim that it is, is worse than ignorance. I would go so far as to say that it's fundamentalist rhetoric. Fundamentalist Agnosticism. This entire article preaches thought evasion in the guise of "skepticism." There is no in between on theism. You either are a theist or you're not.

What is your basis that there is no middle ground? Please explain. Doing so will clear things.

Anyone attempting to use such mindless, evasive, dishonest bullshit is contemptible at best. I'd rather sit and talk with Fred Phelps than someone claiming Agnosticism as their stance on religion, because fuck, at least he's not afraid to speak his damn mind. People like Ron Rosenbaum are a lower form of life than even the WBC.

It's simple really. Give evidence that god exists or don't exists. If you can, that ought to shut people up.

The reason why there is a need for the agnosticism is because at the moment, neither atheists or theists provide evidence to support either side.

A scientist would experiment and then observe. The Result will be analyzed to support one side or the other. Yes?

Well Atheists claim - No proof therefore no god. WTF man? That's clearly an argument from ignorance.
Theists claim - we have proof - faith/testimonies/bible. WTF?
Agnostics claim - we don't know, because their is no proof at the moment or maybe no proof can ever be given. - YES, I LIKE.

Note in agnosticism there are two scenarios. a. I don't know. b. nothing can be known. It's not one. The solution, give proof and agnosticisms will disappear.

The best way to provide proof? Experiment - The simplest way to describe this through trial and error as well as observation.

The reason is that agnosticism demands a stop on thinking. It DEMANDS it. It's worse than religion, because at least with Religion there are going to be fuckoffs like us who run off and play with the chemicals and make neat toys that glow - agnosticism masquerades as an enlightened viewpoint by means of declared ignorance.

Well, I don't know if there is a god. At the moment, science can't experiment on it. So to me it's unknown. Now tell me honestly, can you claim to know with atleast 75 percent certainty that no god/s exists?

I'd rather admit I don't know and keep looking, than to declare I can't know and feel smug. Moreover, I'd rather be honest with myself and know what I am and am not, than to try and create random gray areas in my mind.

Well, that means you're partly agnostic, because you don't know. However you keep looking for proof, this is a good trait, a mind of a scientist.

-oOo-

A. I don't know if god exists.

Proof is given.

I now believe.

That's how a mind of an agnostic works. Therefore he becomes a theist.

B. I don't know if god exists.

Proof is given that god's don't exist.

I reject the existence of god/s.

I don't believe.

Therefore he becomes an atheist.

C. Nothing can ever be know about the existence of god.

Well... this one's bull. But it's also an agnostic.

-oOo-

The best way to remedy the situation is - define the term God into a concrete and quantifiable manner. Then we can experiment on it.

 

[theatheistguy]

I'm an agnostic, atheist, anti-theist. Have fun with that one.

Knowledge (or lack thereof) and belief (or lack thereof) are two very different positions and are not mutually exclusive.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Irkun,

I think theatheistguy just helped me help you on this.

Yes, I am agnostic on a number of topics, including the existence of god/s. But I don't take agnosticism up in lieu of a/theism. Like he does not.

The problem with the position I'm addressing is that it says it is neither theist nor atheist, because it is agnostic.

To help illustrate the point of how there is no middle ground, lets use a similar analogy. This one will be possession(as in, I have X).

Do you possess a vehicle? This is a simple yes or no question. There are many ways in which one may possess a vehicle, it could be owning a bike, renting a truck, or leasing a car. All the various ways of possessing a vehicle make you a vehicle-possessor. Those who don't possess a vehicle are simply non-vehicle-possessors. No matter what else they think of vehicles, they don't possess one. The fact of possession(or belief in theism) is down to the same point - you either are a theist, or you're not. If you have some vague sort of belief, you're still a theist. Any attempted middle ground will still fall on one side of the line or another, and so is no middle ground at all. This is Aristotle's law of the excluded middle, where a proposition is true or its negation is.

This is why agnosticism-as-a-stance is dishonest. I hope that makes more sense. A person claiming to be neither theist nor atheist has not thought for himself.

 

[lrkun]

Irkun,

I think theatheistguy just helped me help you on this.

Yes, I am agnostic on a number of topics, including the existence of god/s. But I don't take agnosticism up in lieu of a/theism. Like he does not.

The problem with the position I'm addressing is that it says it is neither theist nor atheist, because it is agnostic.

To help illustrate the point of how there is no middle ground, lets use a similar analogy. This one will be possession(as in, I have X).

Do you possess a vehicle? This is a simple yes or no question. There are many ways in which one may possess a vehicle, it could be owning a bike, renting a truck, or leasing a car. All the various ways of possessing a vehicle make you a vehicle-possessor. Those who don't possess a vehicle are simply non-vehicle-possessors. No matter what else they think of vehicles, they don't possess one. The fact of possession(or belief in theism) is down to the same point - you either are a theist, or you're not. If you have some vague sort of belief, you're still a theist. Any attempted middle ground will still fall on one side of the line or another, and so is no middle ground at all. This is Aristotle's law of the excluded middle, where a proposition is true or its negation is.

This is why agnosticism-as-a-stance is dishonest. I hope that makes more sense. A person claiming to be neither theist nor atheist has not thought for himself.

I don't agree.

Agnosticism is honest. An agnostic does not jump the gun.

On the other hand. Making a conclusion without evidence to support the existence or none existence of god has no ground to stand on, which is dishonest.

What is required to decide :To make a conclusion based on experiment, the results will tilt the scale on either side. That is what's lacking at the moment.

Therefore I don't think we'll agree on this point, because you fail to show me proof which should tilt on the side of atheism or theism.

Using an anology isn't the best way to prove something exists or does not exists. It's not the same thing. The variance between owning a vehicle and being a theist or atheist is way to big. One refers to belief or the lack of such, while the other refers to a real hypothetical object. Sorry, that just won't work.

The problem you see with respect to god/s. You need to define it.

Ex. If we're talking about Jupiter as a God. Then showing proof that such is a planet denies Jupiter's divinity. Therefore in doing so, it tilts in favor of proving that such a god does not exist.

Keep it specific and maybe I can be persuaded to agree with you, for now, I don't think my atheistic self will budge on this topic about agnosticism.

-oOo-

However, to support your claim. If we use the second definition of an agnostic, which is to believe that nothing can be known. Then I agree with you, because even if proof is provided such agnostic will not budge.

The first definition is still in the stage of searching for information, therefore nothing is known at that point in time.

 

[retardedsociety]

I have a friend that uses the word Agnostic as a superior position to any other, including belief and disbelief, which of course has nothing to do with knowledge.

I mentioned this on another thread so I'll copy and paste it here.

Belief and Knowledge

I do not "believe" in god/gods, but I do not "know" if there is such a thing in the first place. (Agnostic Atheist)

Belief and knowledge are two things, I know cars exist so I by default believe in them, I do not know if gods exist so by default I don't believe in gods.

Most theists mix up belief and knowledge and come to this thinking state...

"I believe there is a god therefore I know there is a god" (But its because they never think about it, I know, I was a Christian)


Basically my friend uses the quote: Socrates "I know that I know nothing"

To walk around and say one knows absolutely nothing equals to dismiss the human capacity to understand things, maybe not 100%, but if a human being is able to launch a robot to mars with accuracy it means we do understand something.


I can believe in anything, but I can't believe in what cannot be proven, and last but not least, I can know some things and others things I will never know, if I don't know something, then I have a right position to dismiss what its unlikely, since the number of unlikely things is overwhelming.


Either people who claim to be agnostics don't understand they are agnostic atheists

or they simply are playing the famous game of Pascal's Wager

 

[theatheistguy]

Agnosticism is honest. An agnostic does not jump the gun.

On the other hand. Making a conclusion without evidence to support the existence or none existence of god has no ground to stand on, which is dishonest.

You appear to be confusing definitions here so let me provide you with a few.


Theism - belief in the existence of a deity or deities
Atheism - lack of belief in the existence of a deity or deities
Anti-theism - belief that no deities exist OR opposition to theism

Gnosticism - knowledge of the existence of a deity or deities
Agnosticism - lack of knowledge of the existence of a deity or deities
Anti-gnosticism - knowledge that no deities exist


You appear to be combining or confusing atheism with anti-gnosticism. An atheist makes no statement about knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a deity, however an agnostic atheist (like myself) makes the statement that they do not know if a deity exists and they do no have belief in one either. You cannot have a gnostic atheist without some extraordinary cognitive dissonance, and anyone who claims to be an anti-gnostic is just an idiot as such knowledge is impossible. Just to fill in the last blanks, you can also have agnostic and gnostic theists.

Now we come to the last part of my position, anti-theist. Again, this is not a claim of knowledge, nor a claim to possess overwhelming evidence or even proof of the non-existence of deities, rather it is the belief that no deities exist. For me, this is based on the lack of evidence in favour of any, and the insurmountable evidence against the necessity for one (though obviously that doesn't rule out the possibility of one).


So to recap, I'm an agnostic (I do not know if there are any deities), an atheist (I lack a belief in the existence of a deity or deities) and an anti-theist (I believe there are no deities). I am open to evidence, I am not telling anyone they are wrong or saying that any other position is wrong, in fact as an atheist, I am presenting the least amount of bias possible, and as an agnostic, my anti-theism is kept in check so as not to bias my view of the world or any 'evidence' presented in favour of the existence of a deity.

 

[Nautyskin]

- It's simple really. Give evidence that god exists or don't exists.
- The reason why there is a need for the agnosticism is because at the moment, neither atheists or theists provide evidence to support either side.
- Well Atheists claim - No proof therefore no god. WTF man? That's clearly an argument from ignorance.
- On the other hand. Making a conclusion without evidence to support the existence or none existence of god has no ground to stand on, which is dishonest.
- Therefore I don't think we'll agree on this point, because you fail to show me proof which should tilt on the side of atheism or theism.
- Using an anology isn't the best way to prove something exists or does not exists.
- The first definition is still in the stage of searching for information, therefore nothing is known at that point in time.

Atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist.

A. I don't know if god exists.

Proof is given.

I now believe.

That's how a mind of an agnostic works.

That describes both agnostic atheism AND agnostic theism, which then turns both to gnostic theism.

 

[lrkun]

Agnosticism is honest. An agnostic does not jump the gun.

On the other hand. Making a conclusion without evidence to support the existence or none existence of god has no ground to stand on, which is dishonest.

You appear to be confusing definitions here so let me provide you with a few.


Theism - belief in the existence of a deity or deities
Atheism - lack of belief in the existence of a deity or deities
Anti-theism - belief that no deities exist OR opposition to theism

Gnosticism - knowledge of the existence of a deity or deities
Agnosticism - lack of knowledge of the existence of a deity or deities
Anti-gnosticism - knowledge that no deities exist


You appear to be combining or confusing atheism with anti-gnosticism. An atheist makes no statement about knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a deity, however an agnostic atheist (like myself) makes the statement that they do not know if a deity exists and they do no have belief in one either. You cannot have a gnostic atheist without some extraordinary cognitive dissonance, and anyone who claims to be an anti-gnostic is just an idiot as such knowledge is impossible. Just to fill in the last blanks, you can also have agnostic and gnostic theists.

Now we come to the last part of my position, anti-theist. Again, this is not a claim of knowledge, nor a claim to possess overwhelming evidence or even proof of the non-existence of deities, rather it is the belief that no deities exist. For me, this is based on the lack of evidence in favour of any, and the insurmountable evidence against the necessity for one (though obviously that doesn't rule out the possibility of one).


So to recap, I'm an agnostic (I do not know if there are any deities), an atheist (I lack a belief in the existence of a deity or deities) and an anti-theist (I believe there are no deities). I am open to evidence, I am not telling anyone they are wrong or saying that any other position is wrong, in fact as an atheist, I am presenting the least amount of bias possible, and as an agnostic, my anti-theism is kept in check so as not to bias my view of the world or any 'evidence' presented in favour of the existence of a deity.

atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief - inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

- lack of faith:

agnosticism - nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

-(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:

I'm just using the dictionary definition. If I made a mistake, blame the Oxford.

 

[lrkun]

Atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist.

In general, it is. But you can use your own definition if it makes you happy.

 

[lrkun]

To refute my statements, use the second definition of agnosticism.

agnosticism is defined the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

The first scenario talks about nothing is known of the existence of nature of god.

The second scenario talks about nothing can be known of the existence or nature of god.

The second scenario is akin to rationalizing the situation. Basically it's like being a theist who believes w/o question despite the evidence or proof to tilt the scale in one way or another.

If you use the second scenario. I agree with you. That is dishonesty.

 

[lrkun]

Either people who claim to be agnostics don't understand they are agnostic atheists

I'm sure if you combine the term agnostic and atheist, you'll arrive at agnostic atheist. However that is not the case if one truly does not know whether god exists or not.
Nevertheless, if a person who is an agnostic decides to choose the position that gods don't exist, then it follows that he is no longer an agnostic but an atheist. Consequently, there are many urban terms and definitions with respect to atheism/atheists. I don't fully agree with them, because they are not yet in the dictionary, so that is why threads like this come to pass.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief - inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

You should be the first one opposing this definition
You claim that nothing can be known about God
Then turn around with definitions that claim that Atheists are refusing/unable to accept something true (God)
Are these definitions is lieu of your own position not hypocritical?

not only that but they are bad definitions that do not fit
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity
It requires no active disbelief

- lack of faith:

agnosticism - nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

This is not incompatible with Atheism
Nothing can be known/is known about God
Therefore you cannot believe it (Unless you want to argue it is honest to believe in something you do not know)
So you are an atheist until a definition of God comes along that can be known

-(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:

Which may work for some things
But Atheism/Theism are things you fall into by default
if you have ANY belief you are a theist
if you don' then you are an Atheist
How can you neither believe nor not believe at the same time?

 

[Zetetic]

I was initially agnostic because I was avoiding the claim that 'God is not real'. That was dishonest, but it was part of my natural progression. I still was uncertain about my position because I was pretty young. I then came to embrace Agnosticism because it seemed more epistemically viable than Atheism, which I viewed as a negative ontological claim, which would make it clearly fallacious. In short I assumed that Atheists claimed the knowledge of non-existence. This is generally not the view of atheists in my experience (though there was one construction worker my dad supposedly met that claimed that evolution disproves all religions), but this is the misconception.

Agnostics generally make the claim that if there is a deity, we can't know it. Since we can't know it, we can't talk about it. Since we can't talk about it, it really isn't important. They treat the problem of the existence of a deity like the pragmatists treat the Color Problem. They point out that it would make no difference, we can't have knowledge of a deity. This assumes too much, I think. I don't consider it epistemically valid or at least suboptimal for the following reason; it puts restraints on the term deity, when they are totally unnecessary.


The only totally epistemically clear position I have found has been Ignosticism, which states explicitly that the terms God and deity are both too ill defined (to instigate the moving target fallacy that often occurs when someone is describing their God or deity) so that the discussion now has the requirement of a clearly defined concept in order to move forward. If an idea is presented it will either be verifiable or useless. If it is verifiable then the Ignostic professes ignorance of any good evidence that it should be here, or points out evidence to the contrary ( if certain predictions are made by the assumption of the existence of the entity an Ignostic will point it out if the predicted events do not occur).

What does this boil down to, really? Probably the view shared by most Atheists, but it requires an explanation of the position and avoids the stigmas attached to Atheism. I find it kind of useless in real conversations. I never say that I'm atheist or Ignostic or PEARList. I give the least three paragraphs as a monologue and hope they either agree with me and are fascinated or leave me alone.

Specifically though, if someone asks me if I believe in any sort of deity I will simply say no.

An interesting point, though! If you tell someone you don't believe something, they often assume that you would say that it doesn't exist. Case in point: Santa Claus. I would never claim to be a Santa Claus agnostic, because it would convey the sort of strange wishy washy attitude that you are talking about, If someone claimed that they didn't take the literal 'fundamentalist' view that Santa Claus delivers presents and lives in the north pole etc. but rather claimed that Santa exists in an unknown location in space-time and makes no contact with humans I would look at them as though they had two heads. I would never, however, be able to experimentally verify the non-existence of their Santa given the premise that there are a non-finite number of locations he could be occupying (something that is not known but seems reasonable, but maybe I'm wrong).

So if I say I don't believe in Santa, people take that to mean that I don't think Santa exists as he is generally conceived ( there is no strange man giving children presents unless their parents aren't Christian). I would assert his non-existence. This is because Santa Claus, though supposedly supernatural, is verifiable/refutable. I do not take the same position with Santa that I do with God. Why? Because many conceptions of God are non-verifiable. So ontological refutation is out of the question. A different tool is needed, pragmatic epistemology. God is unverifiable, so we cannot have knowledge of God, we can't experience God, we can't interact with God and the concept of God therefore holds no consequences for us a fortiori. So will I say that God doesn't exist? No. I will say that it makes no difference, and furthermore that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. A world with an unverifiable God and a world without a God that are identical in every other respect are in principle identical to us. We could not tell the difference.


Why can't I believe in God due solely to an emotional internal experience? Because I know that such an experience could with all likelihood be artificially reproduced. Not only that, but it is probable that there is a procedure by which I could have that reaction occur every time I see a roll of toilet paper. Deities by no means have exclusive access to certain emotional states.

 

[lrkun]

You should be the first one opposing this definition
You claim that nothing can be known about God
Then turn around with definitions that claim that Atheists are refusing/unable to accept something true (God)
Are these definitions is lieu of your own position not hypocritical?

No, its not. So what if I am an atheist? Objectively speaking, it is not hypocritical, because it does not state a claim which support either side due to lack of evidence.

not only that but they are bad definitions that do not fit
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity
It requires no active disbelief

If we apply your definition then you are correct, but if I apply the dictionary definition you are wrong. Consequently, I favor the dictionary definition, because that reflects the accepted definition.

Which may work for some things
But Atheism/Theism are things you fall into by default
if you have ANY belief you are a theist
if you don' then you are an Atheist
How can you neither believe nor not believe at the same time?

I disagree. One can abstain if there is no proof or evidence to support a claim.

 

[Nautyskin]

Atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist.

In general, it is.

Well, no, it's not, and I'm surprised (should I be?) that you've managed to remain a member of discussions with atheists for as long as you have and still not picked up on it.

You might be surprised to learn that perhaps even you, yourself, are an atheist! (although I do not know if you hold a belief in any god)

Atheism, generally speaking, is the lack of a belief in a god. That's all that's required.

You might call me an agnostic, and that's true, but that refers to knowledge.

I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in any deity (not because I assert that gods do not exist) and I am agnostic because I make no claims of knowledge in regards to deities.

I think you have one of the fundamentals entirely the wrong way around, and if you read any post regarding this you will find numerous atheists making this clear to all and sundry, over and over again.