Debating an agnostic

[Jotto999]

Recently I argued with an agnostic, IRL. The points being made went roughly like this;

Him: You atheists are as bad as religious people. You can't prove god exists, nor can you prove he does not, so atheism is as much a blind faith as theism.

Me: Failure to believe in something that there is no evidence for hardly counts as a faith. The burden of proof should be on the believers.

Him: But how do you know god doesn't exist? Why are you closed to that possibility?

Me: I agree that it's possible god could exist in the same way that unicorns might exist. Sure, in theory they could, but there is no evidence for them, so why should we believe in them?

Him: But you can't prove god doesn't exist, so why do you disbelieve in him? Shouldn't you have evidence that he does not exist?

Me: I can't prove he doesn't exist, that's impossible. Look, all gods and all religions are pretty much just different types of unicorns, they all share only the trait that they are made up by humans. If you are going to pick one to believe, or even to accept as a possibility, you should at least have some reason to believe in it but not the others, you need evidence of some kind. Otherwise, how can you possibly know that it's not just another unicorn?

Him: But you don't know that their god isn't real! You have no evidence, just like them. So you telling a theist that god isn't real is arrogant, narrow-minded and just as fundamentalist as they are. Atheists' beliefs and theists' beliefs are equally valid! You thinking your beliefs are "above" a theists' beliefs is what is stupid.


The conversation started to trail off and dwindle around here, nothing that was productive was said after this part. It kinda started to loop over and over. It ended when he had to go to bed, as I'm notcurnal and he is a daysie, and it was midnight.

I was wondering, how would you guys refute him? This went on for hours and my mind got tired. For some reason this conversation took a lot out of me, it was with a close relative and was a bit distressing. If there is such a thing, he is a "fundamentalist agnostic", who thinks nothing can possibly be known for sure, ever, and thus it is absurd to draw conclussions of any kind on anything religious. To me, that thinking is absurd because then how can we know anything? To never draw a conclussion just because the alternative "might" be true is silly. But he wouldn't agree.

What would you have said?

 

[Ozymandyus]

The unicorn comparison, done in different ways, is usually a good one. Refer to gnomes and fairies too. If none of that works say, as a scientist, we only believe in what has evidence - I don't believe that sometimes gravity stops working occasionally, or that water sometimes spontaneously turns into wine because theres no evidence for it. If I didn't assume with reasonable certainly that water never spontaneously turns into wine, I couldn't do any experiments involving water.

Is it blind faith that the sun will still rise tommorow? Is it blind faith that a second sun that appears only once every 100,000 years won't appear tommorow? Should I walk around accepting that maybe gravity will stop working at any moment, because I can't be SURE that doesn't happen sometimes? Or that when that the floor will be solid when I step out of bed? I can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE until I step out of bed, but I don't want to risk my life by falling through the earth.

 

[Aught3]

I would have started by defining terms, atheism and agnosticism being important here.
Then I would say what I think about the existence of gods then ask my opponent to do the same.

If you don't do that at the start (or at least as the definition questions come up) the conversation does tend to loop around and is not productive. Better luck next time.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

Him: But you don't know that their god isn't real! You have no evidence, just like them. So you telling a theist that god isn't real is arrogant, narrow-minded and just as fundamentalist as they are. Atheists' beliefs and theists' beliefs are equally valid! You thinking your beliefs are "above" a theists' beliefs is what is stupid.

"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence."

If i say everything was created 5 minutes ago including our memories, family photos, laws of physic etc.. by invisble magic squirrels.
I got about as much evidence for it as you got for god.
Everytime i can not explain something i can easily say "the magic squirrels just made it that way".
Now I can make an infintiv list of similar idiotic creation storys and you couldnt possible refute
any of these. But you can look for evidence and if there is non, why should i belive this is
more then just some made up bullshit?

This is about what i would have said.

 

[Jotto999]

I would have started by defining terms, atheism and agnosticism being important here.
Then I would say what I think about the existence of gods then ask my opponent to do the same.

If you don't do that at the start (or at least as the definition questions come up) the conversation does tend to loop around and is not productive. Better luck next time.

Well, what seemed to happen was we hit a wall - it was him saying "well nothing can be proven nor disproven, therefore it is useless to make any conclussion". I was trying to convince him otherwise, but was unsure of how.

I even explained to him that even though unicorns can neither be proven nor disproven, I do not believe in them, nor does he, nor do most sane people, and reasonably so. But it meant nothing to him.

I think we were both pretty understanding of each other's position, but he couldn't see that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean you have to, or should, accept it as a possibility. I want to find a way I can demonstrate that so he can understand, he is a family member and I am concerned for his flawed beliefs.

"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence."

If i say everything was created 5 minutes ago including our memories, family photos, laws of physic etc.. by invisble magic squirrels.
I got about as much evidence for it as you got for god.
Everytime i can not explain something i can easily say "the magic squirrels just made it that way".
Now I can make an infintiv list of similar idiotic creation storys and you couldnt possible refute
any of these. But you can look for evidence and if there is non, why should i belive this is
more then just some made up bullshit?

This is about what i would have said.

That's what I kept trying to explain to him, though I didn't use that example. Accepting anything as a possibility that we cannot disprove only because it is a possibility is imbecilic, and yet, I couldn't make him understand why. Is the problem with me not being able to explain well enough, or is the problem with him, who can't understand?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

To be honest, I don't think you can refute someone like that. They're operating on as much faith as true believers. Sounds like you used good arguments and got nowhere. The whole "inability to disprove is not valid proof" should be enough.

Only people like Hitchens have actual blind faith in no God. Most atheists are merely very skeptical.

 

[Aught3]

Well, what seemed to happen was we hit a wall - it was him saying "well nothing can be proven nor disproven, therefore it is useless to make any conclussion". I was trying to convince him otherwise, but was unsure of how.

I even explained to him that even though unicorns can neither be proven nor disproven, I do not believe in them, nor does he, nor do most sane people, and reasonably so. But it meant nothing to him.

I think we were both pretty understanding of each other's position, but he couldn't see that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean you have to, or should, accept it as a possibility. I want to find a way I can demonstrate that so he can understand, he is a family member and I am concerned for his flawed beliefs.

Oh, ok. I was thinking it was just a problem with atheism/agnosticism; namely, you both had the same view but were just giving it a different label.

The actual problem you have is much harder. I have to admit I suck at this kind of philosophical argument. Ozy or mknorman seem to be better at it maybe they can add something to my (attempted) points.

The first thing to do is attempt to elevate the discussion to what I would call a rational discourse. This seems to be what your opponent was objecting to. Now the problem is that in some sense he is actually correct. We could be living in the matrix; this universe could have been created by Yahweh, Pangu, Atum, or FSM; or we could co-inhabit this world with pixies, faeries, djinns, demons, & dragons. What it means to have a rational discourse is to assume that we live in the universe that we perceive with our senses or, as is becoming more common, that we perceive through the scientific instruments that we build.

Why do we do this? The first reason is very simple, it gives you both the same basic set of tools to construct your argument with. If your opponent does not agree, you may label yourself the master of the multiverse and designate him as the official ham sandwich (with or without mustard, it's your choice you're the master of the multiverse now!) and he has no come-back. None. After all he cannot be sure he is not, in fact, a ham sandwich. If he is still harping on about not being 100% sure about anything, leave the conversation. No one is going to learn anything from it, indeed your opponent is essentially maintaining that neither of you can learn anything from it. So what is the point in continuing?

The second reason that we elevate to a rational discourse is that we see that the methods work and produce real results. If we assume the universe is as we perceive, we can conduct experiments and make predictions that hold in that universe. If we were constantly wracked by doubt as to whether the laws of physics or logic would be the same tomorrow as they were today, there would be no point in doing anything. That includes continuing in the argument. The 'material universe is the universe we live in' approach produces real results in the real world. It works; that's why we use it. We might be missing out on some fun or interesting stuff, but claiming that you are the master of the multiverse has never helped to reveal knowledge or improve the world (unfortunately). As a previous poster mentioned; what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed with out evidence.

I think you also might be interested in the ways we can know something, but I've prattled on for long enough. Let me know what you think.

 

[Josan]

Many good points here, I would just like to add my 2 cents worth

First, he seems to have the same misconceptions about atheism that I had in the beginning. That is, athism does not belive there is a god, atheism is not a belief that there is no god. See the difference? Basicly, atheists say "There is no evidence for god, so I don't think he exists", however most religious people try to paint the picture that atheists say "There is no evidence for god, so we know for absoloute certainty that he does not exist". Most atheist are actually agnostic atheists, which means they do not have a belief in god, but they admit it's impossible to know for sure.

The second thing I would do, after having explained that most atheist are in fact agnostic, is use the unicorn argument again, but this time, try it a little different: First ask him "Do you belive in unicorns?(or other myth, bigfoot, nessie, pixxies and so on)". Hopefully he answers no, then you ask him "Why? Have you ever seen any evidence that unicorns DON'T exist?" It's the same thing, to dismiss a claim, you don't need evidence that the claim is false if there is no evidence to support it.

 

[Netheralian]

I think he is just arguing to be difficult and not because he truely believes what he is saying. If he did believe his own crap then he would have to give equal probability of existance/non existance to absolutely everything whether it be (seemingly) real, imagined, made up etc etc etc. In which case, why is he bothering to live which may just be a figment of his own imagination...

If it doesn't have any measurable effect on reality then what's the point in bothering about it?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think those "fundamentalist agnostics" are just assholes. No, really... that's my serious opinion! After you tell someone you don't believe, and they insist that it means you have a positive belief, they are being a dishonest prick, and you can't talk to that sort of person. :lol:

Next time someone hits you with that "we really can't know anything," you have to explain to them that it means that person can never say anything, ever. They can't tell anyone what time it is, they can't tell their boss what they've been up to at work, they can't make ANY claims about anything, ever. That sort of "agnostic" position, which borders on solipsism, is a rejection of any and every other idea, which is why it is a dead end.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Yeah, not only can he not speak about anything, but he can't walk around without fearing falling off the earth or falling through the earth.

It is true that we don't know anything with absolute certainty. This is probably all your friend is holding on to in this argument. As such, its just a language problem. Language is just a contrived set of definitions - the meaning of the word 'know' as used in the english language only means that we are extremely close to certain. Saying 'I know there is no God' or saying you are an atheist is not making a claim of absolute certainty, it is just making a claim of near certainty (in the realm of 99%+) and is probably open to evidence presented to the contrary. This type of knowledge is our working knowledge, things we take for granted when we do anything. We hold them as true until proven otherwise, and don't re-evaluate them unless extraordinary contrary evidence is presented thus saving ourselves a ton of time.

Saying you are agnostic is making a less certain claim, it has real meaningful difference. For all practical purposes we use it when someone is somewhere between 1% and 99% certain on a subject. This realm should be mostly reserved for beliefs that have a genuine degree of uncertainty, like whether our car will start (though we are pretty sure about this, we know very well it might not, and would not be surprised by it). We don't require any kind of extraordinary evidence to accept our car won't start, just very ordinary observance. We'll even take someone's word for it, provided they have an explanation. We worry about whether its true or not.

There are some people that do fall under this category for religion... Your friend may well be one. I'm not. That's the difference. If someone comes up to me with an explanation for why a particular God exists, I can tell them where their reasoning is wrong. That they believe its true is not proof enough for me to re-evalute at all. I don't worry about whether its true or not... I won't except an ordinary observance as proof of it - (i.e. 'Did you see how that car just barely missed me! God Saves!' OR 'I was just thinking about you and you called, it must have been God telling you to call me.' which are real observances of God's work as described to me by theists.).

Anyway, yeah, its just a matter of definitions. Some people get stuck in that 'how can we know anything' phase for a while. He'll get out of it. Though if he's stuck there for a while, definitely watch out for him - it can be a sign of depression. Though it sounds more like he's just the arguing type, which I can appreciate.

 

[irmerk]

You should have made sure to address that you, nor any other atheist, believes the nonexistence of any god, nor do you, or any other atheist, believe anything by the mere term of atheism. Then, you should continue to say that atheism only means you treat gods just the same way as unicorns, fairies or leprechauns. Moreover, you and him agree on discrediting and coming so close on the disbelief scale of these made up things that you could say in a connotative way that you believe they do not exist; however, you merely discredit them on the basis of consistency through every day reality and decision making.

Then you promptly tell him that he epically FAILED.

 

[Spase]

I would have started by defining terms, atheism and agnosticism being important here.
Then I would say what I think about the existence of gods then ask my opponent to do the same.

If you don't do that at the start (or at least as the definition questions come up) the conversation does tend to loop around and is not productive. Better luck next time.

I agree completely with this.

Why? Because I happen to be agnostic. I'm also an atheist. Some people will say this is impossible and it's because they haven't effectively defined terms. Wikipedia sums it up nicely I think in it's first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

It is not a religious claim.

Why is a lack of positive belief in a god somehow related to the assertion that some claims cannot be proven or disproved? I have no reason to believe in any sort of supernatural and I also don't see how you could conclusively show none of it exists since people claim it's outside nature.

I'm not some asshole who thinks that because something can't be disproved it's somehow worthy of serious consideration. I think the word faith is disgusting because it's a word for willful ignorance given a positive connotation. I don't take people's religious views as serious considerations of likely truths.

People seem to think agnosticism has some set percentage. Like maybe if you're agnostic you think there's a 50% chance god exists. I think no such thing and because of a lack of evidence I don't even see why I should think *about* the likelihood a god exists. If someone would care to correct me they can go ahead.. but I'm willing to bet a lot of people calling themselves atheists won't disagree with my statements unless they're pretty sure that all conceivable gods are falsifiable.

I dunno. Maybe it's a stupid semantic pet peeve of mine but it illustrates why defining terms and beliefs before engaging with someone is important. Atheism doesn't even mean you're sure there isn't a god... it means you don't believe in any. This is why I see no reason why atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

 

[Jotto999]

Thank you all for your replies, they've been helpful.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Spase: Sure, you CAN define agnostic loosely like that but Why? Do we only define theists as people who KNOW 100% that there is a god (no one)? So are they agnostics too? Why even use a word about belief in God that includes absolutely everyone? The word just has no meaning if you use it in that way. I think the word immediately becomes much more useful when used to define people that truly are not sure, vs people that are pretty darn sure. And the people who are truly not sure don't get any title of their own without the title of agnostic.

So thats why I go by a stricter definition that precludes the two belief/nonbelief groups, at least when using the term colloquially. Otherwise I might as well just say 'I think cheese is delicious' when people ask me if I believe in God. But I certainly understand why you might define it that way, as a case can be made.

 

[GoodKat]

Spase: Sure, you CAN define agnostic loosely like that but Why? Do we only define theists as people who KNOW 100% that there is a god (no one)? So are they agnostics too? Why even use a word about belief in God that includes absolutely everyone?

Agnostic refers to what they think can be known. An agnostic acknowledges that it can't.

 

[Spase]

Spase: Sure, you CAN define agnostic loosely like that but Why?

GoodKat puts it nicely.

A little more detail:

Agnosticism isn't a religious belief or non-belief. It's why I say I'm both an atheist and agnostic. One is a philosophy of knowledge while the other is a statement of personal belief. You could argue that theists can be agnostic... and you'd be right I suppose. The reason I see these statements as separate is they address two very different issues. Saying you believe theories should be falsifiable isn't the same as saying believing God exists isn't scientific but one does tend to lead to the other.

I haven't met many theists who are willing to admit there's no way to prove their god exists though. In fact, most theists would be a lot less annoying if they were willing to accept agnosticism because in doing so we wouldn't have to listen to their inane arguments anymore about sciences they have no background in. Seriously. Is anything more annoying than the "proofs" that theists try to construct from misinterpreted facts?

[edit]:

A side note: Many agnostics do use the term to excuse their preference to believe that death is not final or that people are all connected or some other make-believe fantasy. I am not defending these people from judgment.

I think I've been very clear on how I feel about belief without evidence and am making my point primarily in agreement with Aught's statement that defining terms is critical in debating systems of belief. Another example would be that you should probably have someone define evolution for you before you spend much time arguing it with them.

 

[Ozymandyus]

My problem is then pushed back to what the people that 'think they know' really mean by know. As soon as we define the term know as to be absolutely certain of something, gnosticism seems to become meaningless to me.

Theists (at least most) will admit under scrutiny that we can't know anything for absolutely certain, particularly if God can change anything that we consider to be eternally true. They also don't claim to KNOW much at all, as they always refer to faith and 'you have to believe'. etc etc.

I certainly agree that this could indeed be the definitions of the words agnostic and gnostic - but I wonder if they really mean anything at all by those definitions. Perhaps its just that I'm so agnostic that I can't even imagine the meaning of the word gnostic, I can't imagine the mindset of someone who absolutely knows that he knows he knows something.

 

[GoodKat]

My problem is then pushed back to what the people that 'think they know' really mean by know. As soon as we define the term know as to be absolutely certain of something, gnosticism seems to become meaningless to me.

Theists (at least most) will admit under scrutiny that we can't know anything for absolutely certain, particularly if God can change anything that we consider to be eternally true. They also don't claim to KNOW much at all, as they always refer to faith and 'you have to believe'. etc etc.

I certainly agree that this could indeed be the definitions of the words agnostic and gnostic - but I wonder if they really mean anything at all by those definitions. Perhaps its just that I'm so agnostic that I can't even imagine the meaning of the word gnostic, I can't imagine the mindset of someone who absolutely knows that he knows he knows something.

You haven't met my father. He is 100% convinced that he is 100% sure that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, he feels the same way about it that I do about my own existence. He claims that he "knows through faith". :roll:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You haven't met my father. He is 100% convinced that he is 100% sure that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, he feels the same way about it that I do about my own existence. He claims that he "knows through faith". :roll:

YOU CAN'T KNOW THINGS THROUGH FAITH!!!!!