Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'll stick to no god, and stick with nature or natural.

As you know from previous conversations, ci...I have no trouble with you, or anyone else, blindly guessing that there are no gods...just as I have no trouble with anyone blindly guessing that there is at least one god.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If there’s no God, how come the only member of ZZ Top without a beard is called Frank Beard?

Explain that one.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank,

Quote:

The atheistic position is all over the place...running from "there are no gods" to "I 'believe' there are no gods" to "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" to...whatever the hell is the atheistic flavor of the day.

Here's how I frame it, to myself: I live as an atheist, that is, "without a deity". I don't think about god; I don't deny it, I don't believe it, I just don't use the term in either a practical or a contemplative manner in my daily life — except when discussing the belief as a cultural phenomenon. Agnosticism almost gives the subject too much attention and respect — more, to my atheistic mind, than it deserves. The whole speculative concept can simply be ignored. To me, atheism means that the existence or non-existence of a supreme being is simply not an issue.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Hey Frank,

Quote:
The atheistic position is all over the place...running from "there are no gods" to "I 'believe' there are no gods" to "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" to...whatever the hell is the atheistic flavor of the day.

Here's how I frame it, to myself: I live as an atheist, that is, "without a deity". I don't think about god; I don't deny it, I don't believe it, I just don't use the term in either a practical or a contemplative manner in my daily life — except when discussing the belief as a cultural phenomenon. Agnosticism almost gives the subject too much attention and respect — more, to my atheistic mind, than it deserves. The whole speculative concept can simply be ignored. To me, atheism means that the existence or non-existence of a supreme being is simply not an issue.

I understand.

But two questions arise:

One: Are atheists being more logical than agnostics?

Two: Why...WHY...do you use "atheist" as a descriptor, rather than simply stating your position.

Here is mine, once again:

I do not know if any gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

If I may...is there some part of that comment with which you are in disagreement?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

One: Are atheists being more logical than agnostics?

No, not when they say these sorts of things, using your examples:

Quote:

"There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

I agree with your appraisal of those statements as illogical and imprecise.

Quote:

Two: Why...WHY...do you use "atheist" as a descriptor, rather than simply stating your position.

Only because to my mind, when the descriptor is seen as meaning "without god", it's closer to how I actually live my life. I have no objection to your statement:

Quote:

I do not know if any gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Especially the very last line. My point isn't to say that either agnosticism or atheism are right or wrong. I'm just carving out an interpretation of "atheism" which doesn't make the claims that you (and I) find objectionable. When I describe my thinking as that of an atheist I am not saying that no deity exists — I'm simply removing myself from a theistic context entirely. Because that's how I live, without god.

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
One: Are atheists being more logical than agnostics?

No, not when they say these sorts of things, using your examples:

Quote:
"There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

I agree with your appraisal of those statements as illogical and imprecise.

Quote:
Two: Why...WHY...do you use "atheist" as a descriptor, rather than simply stating your position.

Only because to my mind, when the descriptor is seen as meaning "without god", it's closer to how I actually live my life. I have no objection to your statement:

Quote:
I do not know if any gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Especially the very last line. My point isn't to say that either agnosticism or atheism are right or wrong. I'm just carving out an interpretation of "atheism" which doesn't make the claims that you (and I) find objectionable. When I describe my thinking as that of an atheist I am not saying that no deity exists — I'm simply removing myself from a theistic context entirely. Because that's how I live, without god.

Thanks, Hightor.

We seem essentially to be on the same page.

I appreciate you taking time to answer my questions.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

I'm simply removing myself from a theistic context entirely. Because that's how I live, without god.

This always gives me a chuckle. You, CI (and Frank) claim to divorce yourselves from it, and yet you cannot withhold yourselves from weighing in on it.
Passing strange it is.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

sorta like you and your interest in biological sci. eh?

Its amazing how we fail to keep our mirrors clean

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I fail to see the comparison.
When and how have I denied the validity of biological science?

The only thing I deny is 'your' nonsensical conclusion that biological science supports the idea of atheism. I say it does just the opposite, and I have given the reasons for my conclusion which you have no answer for.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Really?

It's obvious. Fm hit the nail square on the head.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

When did Frank get back!?

1 Reply

@igm,

Why are you asking me?

When I said FM I meant Farmerman, but Frank has posted on this thread and is currently quite active.

I’m sure he’ll be pleased to hear from you.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

If a job needs doing...
Having checked it seems that Frank stopped posting Dec 2015 and reappeared Feb 2020... Robert must have forgiven him. He popped in for 'one quick post' and never left.
I remember him saying, 'It is what it is.', a lot! Also, he was always at pains to be accommodating and uncontroversial, lol. We had the odd jovial discussion, so when I checked how Frank and his friends were doing here on a2k I was surprised to see he was, well, alive and kicking.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

If a job needs doing...
Having checked it seems that Frank stopped posting Dec 2015 and reappeared Feb 2020... Robert must have forgiven him. He popped in for 'one quick post' and never left.
I remember him saying, 'It is what it is.', a lot! Also, he was always at pains to be accommodating and uncontroversial, lol. We had the odd jovial discussion, so when I checked how Frank and his friends were doing here on a2k I was surprised to see he was, well, alive and kicking.

Hey, igm. Good to see you.

We had some good exchanges early in this thread.

If Robert comes back and asks me to leave again...I'll go. If not, I'll stick around. I enjoy the place.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

If a job needs doing...
Having checked it seems that Frank stopped posting Dec 2015 and reappeared Feb 2020... Robert must have forgiven him. He popped in for 'one quick post' and never left.
I remember him saying, 'It is what it is.', a lot! Also, he was always at pains to be accommodating and uncontroversial, lol. We had the odd jovial discussion, so when I checked how Frank and his friends were doing here on a2k I was surprised to see he was, well, alive and kicking.

Hey, igm. Good to see you.

We had some good exchanges early in this thread.

If Robert comes back and asks me to leave again...I'll go. If not, I'll stick around. I enjoy the place.

What is your opinion on the topic now?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

If a job needs doing...
Having checked it seems that Frank stopped posting Dec 2015 and reappeared Feb 2020... Robert must have forgiven him. He popped in for 'one quick post' and never left.
I remember him saying, 'It is what it is.', a lot! Also, he was always at pains to be accommodating and uncontroversial, lol. We had the odd jovial discussion, so when I checked how Frank and his friends were doing here on a2k I was surprised to see he was, well, alive and kicking.

Hey, igm. Good to see you.

We had some good exchanges early in this thread.

If Robert comes back and asks me to leave again...I'll go. If not, I'll stick around. I enjoy the place.

What is your opinion on the topic now?

My opinion is that "I DO NOT KNOW" is a better answer to the question, "Are there any gods" than all the other answers that are given by people describing themselves as atheists or theists.

I acknowledge that both atheists and theists are at a slight advantage in one regard. One of them is correct. Either there is at least one god...or there are none.

An agnostic perspective merely acknowledges that the person offering it does not know which is the correct guess.

1 Reply

@igm,

You can prove something exists. You can refuse to know anything (perfectly fine).

You cannot prove that something does not exist.

I meet a unicorn, I snap a photo of it. Someone else may disbelieve anyway ("Yeah right, it looks doctored"), but I do have visual evidence of said unicorn.

On the other hand, I may say that no unicorn exists. But maybe the multiverse theory is right, and writers are basically channeling parallel dimensions (or an ancient memory of a unicorn-like beast).
The point is, if something is said not to exist, you have to exhaust any possibility that it never existed or doesn't exist elsewhere. Otherwise you are a liar, claiming to know all events. This upset me in another discussion on the Great Flood. This is an omniscience disproval fallacy. "I know there is no God." Are you God? Can you see everywhere and every time? "No?" Then how do you know there is no God?

Now, can you prove that something invisible exists? Sure can! What about radiation? You often can't see it but it makes you sick. God being invisible doesn't

Agnosticism is more logical than atheism. You can not believe or not know that there is a God. You can believe or know there is a God. But to know there isn't a God is an act of hubris, placing your knowledge equal to God, by deciding that you are sure of his nonexistence. This assertion is a claim of omniscience.

Burden of proof for nonexistence > burden of proof for existence.

I only have to produce a photo, hoofprints, a horn, and a dead unicorn to convince people that I have killed a unicorn like the awful person I am. But in order to prove no unicorn exists, I either have to exhaust all locations and somehow prove that I have really looked everywhere.

Or I have to come up with a logical reason why unicorns cannot exist. But such reasons are often limited (circular square is not a logical impossibility) or the effective equivalent of a strawman changing parameters to discount the object in question. "Unicorns must be magical." Must they? Can not a horn with a horn be sufficient? "God must be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent (I only heard this last one in the last twenty years)." Must he? Must he even be a "He"?

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

For the record, all of these assumptions are patently flawed, making me think they were devised by atheists or people with poor grasp of theology.
1. Omnipotence often gets the boulder creation paradox thrown at it. But there's a simple answer to that. Is a child able to lift a boulder? No, but an adult can push a boulder. Potential. God is able to lower or raise his own potential. But more importantly, they often use this as pass for "God wasn't able to grant my wish, therefore he doesn't exist." You're confusing ability with willingness. And you're a spoiled brat.
2. Which brings us to the omnibenevolence, also used to justify the wish granting above. God didn't grant your prayer/wish because you're not as good as you think. It is not evil not to grant prayers of people who will never love or respect you. Nor is it evil to refuse to grant the prayers of a necromancer wanting to flood the earth with zombies. So we then move to the question of "If God is good why does he allow evil?" Well because absolute good and evil are not real things. Fauci is an awful human being who is on record injecting beagles with a parasite then killing them (and his COVID response was dishonest). But unless he's a demon, he's done plenty of good things too. Likewise, God might object to your skewed notions of good and evil. God is not all good, but rather he does good and evil for the larger picture of true goodness. "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
3. Omniscience? It is not clear how time works, so there is a fatalism issue. If I were God, I would not want omniscience in regard to time. This removes all choices. I suppose clairvoyance literally everywhere in every universe might be okay, but knowing the future paralyzes you to act.
4. Omnipresence? This one could actually be so. But watch this scene from Lucy. If God is everywhere, then God is also unable to be seen unless we understand how to see God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUad0ZL-nBU

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

If a job needs doing...
Having checked it seems that Frank stopped posting Dec 2015 and reappeared Feb 2020... Robert must have forgiven him. He popped in for 'one quick post' and never left.
I remember him saying, 'It is what it is.', a lot! Also, he was always at pains to be accommodating and uncontroversial, lol. We had the odd jovial discussion, so when I checked how Frank and his friends were doing here on a2k I was surprised to see he was, well, alive and kicking.

Hey, igm. Good to see you.

We had some good exchanges early in this thread.

If Robert comes back and asks me to leave again...I'll go. If not, I'll stick around. I enjoy the place.

What is your opinion on the topic now?

My opinion is that "I DO NOT KNOW" is a better answer to the question, "Are there any gods" than all the other answers that are given by people describing themselves as atheists or theists.

I acknowledge that both atheists and theists are at a slight advantage in one regard. One of them is correct. Either there is at least one god...or there are none.

An agnostic perspective merely acknowledges that the person offering it does not know which is the correct guess.

Your opinion is valid, thanks for your input and update.

Is your opinion more logical? Is it that actually we ultimately don't know anything, but conventionally we go with what works from day to day?

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

So, who are the most illogical: atheists, agnostics or theists? Is being logical beneficial to theists, when it comes to their theist faith?

0 Replies

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know