An Agnostics take on "agnostic atheists"

More like!

Religious logic = We cannot explain this phenomenon yet, therefore it's God

Atheist logic = Since religion is born out of trying to absolutly explain phenomenons we couldnt explain scientifically yet, it's bullshit and I dont buy in it

People are well capable of making informed guesses based on the evidence they have. Just like people dismiss the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy due to a lack of evidence, just like they dismiss the existence of Zeus or Wotan, they might as well dismiss the existence of the Christian god - even though they don't know with absolute certainty whether they exist or not.

Science actually works similarly. You won't just conduct an expensive and lengthy experiment to confirm some crackpot hypothesis for which there is little evidence hinting in the direction that it might be true or a very good argument at least.

So even though we don't know whether a Christian god or whatever god exists - I'd argue that it's the reasonable option to simply live ones life under the assumption that he does not exist.

burden of proof goes on the claimant

you're the one claiming magic sky wizards you have to prove it.

you're going against logic stating you're father isn't trying to kill you

kill him before he kills you

>Since religion is born out of trying to absolutly explain phenomenons we couldnt explain scientifically yet
Yet another example of an atheist beieving in something that has no evidence to support it. You've really proved how superior you are to those silly religious folk.

new atheism was a mistake

Quit using logical fallacies and people will stop thinking you're silly.

Atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists" because they think the term exonerates them from the burden of proving their claims to be true--such as "unicorns almost certainly doesn't exist"--but the term is entirely incoherent.

If "atheism" remains as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the denial of the existence of unicorns, or as the belief unicorns don't exist, then to call one's self an "agnostic atheist" is to say one doesn't know if unicorns exists and believes unicorns doesn't exist--which is logically incoherent as not knowing requires not believing and one can't believe and not believe at the same time--or it is to say one doesn't know if unicorns exists and denies the existence of unicorns. The term "denies the existence of unicorns" can be taken to mean "believes unicorns don't exist," in which case the latter is logically incoherent for the same reason as the former, or "doesn't believe unicorns exists," which can be taken to mean the same thing, or "lacking belief that unicorns exists."

If "atheism" is defined as "lacking belief that unicorns exists," and one who calls themselves an "agnostic atheist" also lacks belief that unicorns don't exist, or the necessarily existent propositional negation of unicorns's existence, then that person lacks belief that unicorns exists and lacks belief that unicorns don't exist is therefore an agnostic, not an "agnostic atheist." Such a person could just as easily define themselves as an "agnostic a-atheist," using the classical definition of "atheism," meaning one who doesn't know if unicorns exists and lacks a belief that unicorns don't exist.

If an "agnostic atheist" doesn't lack belief that unicorns don't exist, which is the same as their having belief that unicorns don't exist, which is the same as believing unicorns don't exist, then that person is an atheist, not an "agnostic atheist."

>It's only ok to make baseless assumptions when I'm the one making them
yeah sure thing pal

now you're just being silly

Atheists believe that there is no God.

Agnostics don't necessarily believe there is no God, but lack a belief in God.

>I don't know if God exists but if he does I can not have any knowledge about him.

Agnosticism is just as illogical because it presumes the existence of God and bases it's stance on one of his traits: The impossibility of unmediated knowledge of God.

Immanuel Kant was wrong. Saying that humans can't perceive the thing itself is already a statement about the thing itself and makes the whole statement a logical fallacy.

Lets say there is a god because not being able to prove there isn't automatically makes it true.

which god would there be?

My guess is that because if you can't prove it it is true, all the gods exist from every religion even shitty meme gods like FSM. They all fight each other for cosmic supremacy over the universe.

it's been that way since the Finno-Korean Hyper-war.

>is already a statement about the thing itself
no. it's a statement about an idea of the thing

Aye, both are fools. One just has a more tenable foolish position. Arrogant ignorance.

There's been only one God all along.

>Saying that humans can't perceive the thing itself is already a statement about the thing itself and makes the whole statement a logical fallacy.
That's not a statement about "the thing" you fuckmunch, it's a statement about human perception.

>I can't prove there's one god so that means there IS one god!

monotheists logic

*tips fedora*

>That's not a statement about "the thing" you fuckmunch, it's a statement about human perception.

The joke is that this statement is thought of as true. As long as this statement is thought of as true it is also a statement about the thing itself which is a logical contradiction.

>this denial over his god being gang banged by thor, marduk and shiva on a weekly basis

monotheist are just half-assed atheists

polytheism makes more sense in the grand scheme of things

wow you say that with no sense of irony as you smugly insist you know everything about the nature of god and the universe?

elaborate

ITT: nonsensical gibberish used as an excuse not to support one's claims of the existence of god

1 Samuel 5

When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon[a] and set it by Dagon. 3 And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the Lord.

Thor is another name for Tammuz, son of Nimrod, builder of the tower at Babel.

Shiva is merely a fallen angel. A demon.

There has always only been one God.

Yup.

>my book is true, it clearly says so itself

Indeed.

there's a god to explain every phenomenon as well as explain why there's conflict among these phenomenon, but the monotheist say there isn't while giving no proof why.

monotheism is just atheist way of easing people into the notion of no god by removing all but one.

What are you talking about? The reverse is true, only monotheism makes sense. How is everything not centralized in one? There is a beginning and an end and logically, this is all conducive to a singularity of body, mind, and spiritual energy. How is this singularity not God?

Numerically too, the monad as a concept is expressed in every number originating after it. God is clearly the beginning and end, represented as the singular point.

Indeed, if you're a moron

Or even if you're not.

>saying beginning and end is one being
>no proof of it being true

whatever you say closest-fedora

It's a logical proof. Read into mathematical analyses of numerical ideas like The Theoretical Arithmetic of the Pythagoreans.

Esotericism can help you find God and only God, because an expanding Universe has only one origin and one end.

Simple. The things you call gods are not gods.

>worshipping multiple entities
I didn't think we were this far in Plato's cave still.

No, I'm pretty sure that's known as circular reasoning. It's a well-known fallacy. If christcucks like you want to be taken intellectually seriously, you'd better stop using it

People with twisted minds see only twisted things.

The things in the bible are true whether they were written down or not.

You should actually apply logic to your alternative explanation for the existence of the universe.

O dear, looks like someone is having another Æutistic fit again

>only Christians read The Holy Bible
You are too cute.

>The things in the bible are true whether they were written down or not.
how do you know?

Not believing = denying the existence of

Not sure why we bother with the semantics. Either you believe in a god or you don't. Agnostics always just seemed like atheists trying to rebrand themselves.

Explain.

Because I know him.

>Not believing = denying the existence of
not true

who?

Logically being a hard atheist would require infinite knowledge. There could be a god hiding somewhere in any number of infinite universes, for example.

Since that is an untenable position, more intelligent atheists, and not the screaming irrational anti-theists, have assumed ignorance and regard it as a virtue.

The Truth.

what's the source of the truth?

There is no source. He's eternal.

how do you know the truth?

Or perhaps atheists and theists alike should stop viewing religion as a scientific theory.

Explain what? That you're the guy who's formally known as Ælian and that for the past few years, all you've been doing with your life is christposting here on Veeky Forums? I think you'd need a psychiatrist for that

>Veeky Forums
>past few years

if it's not a scientific theory it's literally not worth talking about

Ælian used to christpost on /pol/, that's where he gets his faggy /pol/speak from. He's clearly autistic, and has no ides how to interact with people. This is painfully obvious every time someone disagrees with his fundamentalist version of Christianity.

That's how I recognize him every single time. When there's some christfag on Veeky Forums who keeps stressing the same point without responding to anything the other guy says, you can be pretty sure its Ælian having another autistic fit

Personally.

That would be wonderful, as it is outside the purview of mankind's feeble and wildly mistaken science.

>if it's not a scientific theory it's literally not worth talking about

Fuck off then because it's not a scientific theory.

Or maybe you just suck at identifying people and countering arguments?

You have yet to give a single one

I'm not the person "AElian".

It's not much of an argument, but I find it persuasive.

A building infers a builder.
A painting infers a painter.
Creation infers a Creator.

It's not much of an argument, but I find it persuasive.

>creation
;^)

Yup.

Universe infers universe maker.

Coded information stored in DNA infers coder.

And so on.

But that argument says everything. You pay enough attention to a painting to know it was created by something. A building is the same way. Now a person, to be cognizant of the fact that we were created takes quite a great deal of attention and life within yourself.

>Not believing = denying the existence of

This is literally false

>Universe infers universe maker.
it doesn't

tl;dr but I have a strong suspicion that this is true

if we weren't we wouldn't have this thread

Yes, I find it persuasive because I have accepted that I am not the apex of intelligence in the universe.

>nuh-uh

You can wait to meet him, if you'd like. I wouldn't recommend it.

"Fool".

Or maybe "Fool Without Excuse".

FWE?

>have no argument
>makes vague threats of divine retribution

I can make the warnings more clear if you'd like. "Threats" implies I am the one you have to worry about.

Pleb trying to take on Kant without having any sort of understanding, good lord.

And winning.

I like how the only argument theists have left is "existing universe implies it was created". As if that had anything to do with Earth, human-invented religions. If some sentient being created the universe, it obviously has nothing to do with us. If anything it's some Azathoth-like blind and idiotic being that just farts stuff into creation and can't ever perceive what it creates.

>human-invented religions
Religion is based on God interacting with the physical environment.

>yfw your "God" is actually a demonic being masquerading as a benevolent master in order to consume you for all eternity
Prove me wrong

Objective truth needs no associated argumentation.

It's objectively true.

Projection is wrong.

>muh questionable analogy fallacy
wew

a universe fine-tuned for life does imply a omnipotent omniscient deity.

there is also the hard problem of conscoisuness, and the mystery of abiogenesis.

Prove that it's objectively true.

>a universe fine-tuned for life does imply a omnipotent omniscient deity.

What makes you think it's fine tuned for life? How do you know that if the universe had different parameters, that life simply wouldn't have been different itself?

>hard problem of consciousness

No reason to think it's a "hard" problem in the slightest. This makes about as much sense as saying "the hard problem of dark matter."

>the mystery of abiogenesis

We've had amino acids form into proteins in lab conditions.

it's not that fucking difficult
>I'm not convinced that God exists, but I have an open mind
done

>unironically championing scienceism
wew the fuck lad

Unnecessary mental masturbation.

It's self-evident.

The cosmological constant could not be different by 1 part in 10^120, or life would not exist.

There are, what, 10^80 atoms in the universe, so 10^120 is kind of a big number.

And being off by 1, in that big number, means no life.

I'd say that all by itself qualifies as "finely tuned".