"Agnostics are Nowhere Men"

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get the feeling you've not really read through my posts on the subject, as I've already addressed this more than once in this thread.

Sceptic Tank, don't confuse not agreeing with you or not holding your world view as not having read your posts.

I honestly don't care what you find easy or hard to believe. What I actually think - which I've explained many times already, and which you're arguing against straw man versions of - is not influenced in the slightest by what you find easy to believe.

Which is the position I've said many times is the one that I actually hold. So your entire post has been arguing that I really ought to hold the position that I've already said I do hold. Except I'd quibble over the use of the word "fact".

Nor is this discussion all about 'you'. In fact, neither of my last two posts even addressed your posts directly. The closest I came was saying I hold a similar view to what Tourmaline had earlier expressed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Going back further to figure out what you are on about:

... But I can also admit the teeny-tiny Russell's Teapot possibility that that reality is actually real and I'm just dreaming this life as a butterfly in their world. Or whatever....

Strictly speaking, I'm saying that everything is unknowable.

I don't find this to be exactly what I was saying. Perhaps the difference is imperceptible to you in what I said:

What would be consistent with scientific principles would be to conclude the evidence says gods are fiction. New evidence could come along and change that conclusion, but since it has not, then the evidence says it is a fact, gods are fictional.

"New evidence can come along" does not change the certainty of a conclusion* until new evidence comes along. (*The certainty of a conclusion is variable based on the evidence.)

I can understand how "teeny tiny possibility" and "certain until evidenced otherwise" sounds the same to you. But to me there is a huge philosophical difference. And it is blatantly evident when one asks the god question. If you ask the question, "Do gods exist?", your answer it would be, "Almost certainly no, but one cannot prove that, so there is a teeny tiny possibility they do."

Where as I would ask the question, "What does the evidence say about gods?" And my answer would be, "There is enough evidence now to say with certainty, gods are fictional beings." At that point, there is zero evidence of gods that are not fictional, so one would have as much doubt that Harry Potter existed as doubt that any gods exist. There is no uncertainty there, not even a teeny tiny bit.

I recognize my position is not held by everyone. But it makes perfect sense to me and when I look to the future, I think most critical thinkers will eventually make the paradigm shift in how they think about fictional gods. I cannot imagine critical thinkers in the future leaving a philosophical space for the potential existence of gods any more than they maintain such a potential space now for the existence of Pele or Zeus or a real Harry Potter. In the future, it will become clear to critical thinkers, because the evidence makes it inevitable, that gods always were fictional. If you are certain Zeus was a fictional being, why can't one be just as certain all gods are fictional beings? Answer: There is no reason.

 

[stevea]

There are many points of view of both atheism and agnosticism.

We can talk about two flavors of agnostics here to simplify the discussion. One flavor is the agnostic who is really an atheist but thinks of the god question as, you can't prove gods don't exist so science doesn't allow you to say with certainty, there are no gods.

That's the most contorted, strawman formulation I've ever read. You claim type-1 agnostics are really atheists who can't disprove gods, therefore science prevents a decisive statement. You are mixing models, science and mathematical logic are two entirely distinct things. Math provides proofs, science cannot.

I think I am what you call a type-1 agnostic. I am not an atheist, in the sense that I carefully practice having no opinion on matters where there is no evidence. Whether a deity exists or not; (or fairies or dragons or ....) is a physical property and to estimate whether gods or frogs exists I'd demand to examine the physical evidence. Science can't "prove" anything ever - but neither can it posit probabilities until evidence accrues. There is absolutely no evidence to consider, so no statement based on science can be made on the topic.

Now we can for example show there is evidence that the earth didn't stop in it's tracks in the past few thousand years, but that is just discrediting one written account, and not the concept generally. We can pick at the wriitten Judeo-Christian account to the pount of having little left besides a creation story. That still doesn't discredit the general concept, nor other conceptions. of a deity.

For the first flavor agnostic, I say, shift paradigms from asking, can you prove gods don't exist to the more appropriate question, what does the evidence tell us about gods? Proving gods don't exist starts with a conclusion, gods might exist, and asks the question, does any evidence fit this conclusion? I prefer to start with the question, where does the evidence about gods lead? It leads very clearly to the conclusion, gods are fictional beings.

But there is absolutely no physical evidence either way. If you have any physical evidence refuting the existence of all conceivable deities, then produce it. Otherwise there is no scientific conclusion to be drawn.. Yours is the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It's the teapot orbiting pluto problem, except in that case we could potentially gather evidence.

The ONLY scientific thing we can say about the deist hypothesis is that these theories makes presuppositions that are currently unnecessary to model all current evidence; therefore by the parsimony principal we shall eliminate these from our scientific model. That's quite different from stating deities don't exist. It's just a statement that they don't add anything to our physical model of the universe that cannot be explained as well without.

Can you rule out Harry Potter or fairies or Leprechauns as potential explanations for the origin of the Universe? You can see, I hope, that adding willy nilly explanations, just because someone can imagine such origins, does not yield a valid hypothesis. On what basis do you add the god hypothesis to your list of possible Universe origins?

You strong atheists are the ones adding willy-nilly negative theories. As a type-1 agnostic I have absolutely no physical theory about a god, leprechauns dragons or unicorns. It's you strong atheists who insist on negative theories despite a complete lack of evidence. Ignorant yet arrogantly cock-sure has nothing to do with reason..

And I haven't even gotten to the usual argument, adding a god layer is akin to invoking, "magic did it" which does nothing to increase our understanding of the Universe. How did the gods originate? It's a self defeating line of inquiry unless you have some evidence gods exist. And if you had such evidence, then we'd have the answer to how the Universe originated, but we'd need to start asking where did the gods originate?

And it's logically inconsistent to assert the gods don't exist when you strong-atheists have no negative evidence. Creating any theory in the complete absence of any supporting evidence makes no sense. So why do you atheists start down this path in the first place of creating negative theories based on ignorance ? I could create a million un-evidenced hypotheses - gods, genii, ghosts, unicorns, mosquitos with three wings, new sub-atomic particles, lichens on Mars .... Why should you spend an instant considering any of these until and unless evidence accrues ?

It's an error to claim that such things exist in the total absence of evidence(as a deist does), and it is a symmetric error to claim they don't in the absence of negative evidence(as a strong atheist does). Learn to ignore the unevidenced claims/hypotheses as agnostics do; as scientists regularly do when there is no or insufficient evidence.

===========

I think there is something in the psyche of strong-agnostics that prevents then from accepting ignorance as an acceptable status for an issue. What exactly does the strong-atheist conclusion that there is no deity, or perhaps that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter allow you to conclude ? It's unnecessary mental baggage, logical error, and scientific error to make a finding of fact where no evidence exists.

As I've already stated, I don't believe that evidence of "the supernatural" can ever exist, based on fundamental considerations. So such questions will remain moot.

 

[Tumblehome]

Yes, actually. That's why I quibbled earlier saying that I preferred to say "unknown", rather than "unknowable".

I'd take issue with "everything is unknown" as well. If that's the case, how do you know that? It's still a self-defeating statement.

At what point will we know something? Anything. And how will we know that we know it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The closest I came was saying I hold a similar view to what Tourmaline had earlier expressed.

And all of his/her posts in the last two weeks and 4 pages have been addressed directly to me. Instead of replying to my last post in which I answered your last post addressed to me, you jumped in to the middle of a protracted conversation I had been having with Tormaline and said that you agreed with him/her. I don't think I'm exactly being the most egotistical being on the surface of the planet if I assume that your post is directed at me.

"New evidence can come along" does not change the certainty of a conclusion* until new evidence comes along.

You're right, it doesn't. I haven't implied it does.

If you ask the question, "Do gods exist?", your answer it would be, "Almost certainly no, but one cannot prove that, so there is a teeny tiny possibility they do."

Depends on the discussion. Usually, no, that wouldn't be my answer at all.

Where as I would ask the question, "What does the evidence say about gods?" And my answer would be, "There is enough evidence now to say with certainty, gods are fictional beings." At that point, there is zero evidence of gods that are not fictional, so one would have as much doubt that Harry Potter existed as doubt that any gods exist. There is no uncertainty there, not even a teeny tiny bit.

And I would say that that is neither the sceptical nor the scientific position to hold.

I cannot imagine critical thinkers in the future leaving a philosophical space for the potential existence of gods any more than they maintain such a potential space now for the existence of Pele or Zeus or a real Harry Potter.

And, as I've said, I do leave the same philosophical space for both of those to exist.

If you are certain Zeus was a fictional being, why can't one be just as certain all gods are fictional beings? Answer: There is no reason.

See, earlier you told me not to confuse your not agreeing with my position with not having read my posts. But it's you saying things like this which lead me to believe that you haven't read my posts. I've addressed the issue of certitude. I've addressed the issue of Zeus (or, if not specifically Zeus, things of that ilk). And, if you were cognisant of what I've said about those things, then you wouldn't be saying things like this because you'd know that they don't address my position at all and, even if they did, then the answers to what you're saying are things I've already posted anyway so your statement would be redundant in any case.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'd take issue with "everything is unknown" as well. If that's the case, how do you know that?

I don't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's the most contorted, strawman formulation I've ever read. You claim type-1 agnostics are really atheists who can't disprove gods, therefore science prevents a decisive statement. You are mixing models, science and mathematical logic are two entirely distinct things. Math provides proofs, science cannot.

It's not a straw man. I said, "There are many points of view of both atheism and agnosticism. We can talk about two..." Since that doesn't say a single thing about any specific person's flavor of agnosticism, whatever your gripe is about my comment, straw man is not applicable.

With that in mind, I cannot help posting:

Your straw man: You have misstated my description of the first flavor of agnostic I described. But I see from your next statement that you deal with the question of gods differently and I think that is where the 'miscommunication' is.

I think I am what you call a type-1 agnostic. I am not an atheist, in the sense that I carefully practice having no opinion on matters where there is no evidence. Whether a deity exists or not; (or fairies or dragons or ....) is a physical property and to estimate whether gods or frogs exists I'd demand to examine the physical evidence. Science can't "prove" anything ever - but neither can it posit probabilities until evidence accrues. There is absolutely no evidence to consider, so no statement based on science can be made on the topic.

Your position would be a third flavor of agnostic, not one I described, thus it is a straw man. But I digress...


The agnostic I was describing has essentially concluded, gods don't exist, but has an issue with the fact one cannot 'prove' the negative, no gods exist. Your flavor of agnosticism comes close, but doesn't exactly fit that description.

But the point is not who is right, the point is simply describing different approaches to the god question and discussing those different philosophical approaches. You seem to be posting with a bit of annoyance that people don't buy your view. But perhaps I am misreading your post.

I take issue with your claim we have no evidence against gods existing therefore we can have no opinion one way or the other. That's like saying we have no evidence for or against Harry Potter's existence. We have evidence Harry Potter is fiction. Why the double standard regarding god fiction? Or do you insist none of us can have an opinion Harry Potter is not a real being either?

Now we can for example show there is evidence that the earth didn't stop in it's tracks in the past few thousand years, but that is just discrediting one written account, and not the concept generally. We can pick at the wriitten Judeo-Christian account to the pount of having little left besides a creation story. That still doesn't discredit the general concept, nor other conceptions. of a deity.

But there is absolutely no physical evidence either way. If you have any physical evidence refuting the existence of all conceivable deities, then produce it. Otherwise there is no scientific conclusion to be drawn.. Yours is the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It's the teapot orbiting pluto problem, except in that case we could potentially gather evidence.

Can you draw a conclusion about the Earth's crust consisting of moving plates despite the fact we haven't measured the movement of every square inch of crust? Can you draw a conclusion about DNA or do you have to check every combination of nucleic acid sequences before you can say DNA contains a blueprint for life?

We draw many conclusions about all kinds of things without having to test every single one or every square inch. How many god myths do we need to test before drawing a conclusion that all gods are mythical beings? It's my premise that this is again the double standard rearing its head.

I don't have to find the fossil record of every breed of dog to conclude humans affected their evolution. The fact I can't prove Harry Potter is fiction does not mean the evidence HP is fiction is uncertain. It is certain that Harry Potter is fiction. Science does not require I consider all fiction to need disproving once it is written or described by a person. People create fiction. All the evidence supports the conclusion that all god fiction has been created by people. At some point, I can make a broader statement about the nature of gods, and that nature is fiction.

Your position, that there is no evidence for or against gods existing, fails to consider the wealth of evidence gods are fiction. Your position is one of the standard, "can't test the supernatural" positions the scientific community has taken.

My feeling about that position has a couple sides. One, as I've been saying, it ignores the evidence people invented gods. Gods are fictional. Two, it is a double standard. We recognize all sorts of fiction and don't have to make special cases for why the fact something is fiction is irrelevant to the possibility that thing exists.

And three, taking a non-committal position about god beliefs merely kicks the can down the road. At some point in the future, the scientific community is going to have to take the position gods are fictional. Why? Because the evidence supports that conclusion.

The ONLY scientific thing we can say about the deist hypothesis is that these theories makes presuppositions that are currently unnecessary to model all current evidence; therefore by the parsimony principal we shall eliminate these from our scientific model. That's quite different from stating deities don't exist. It's just a statement that they don't add anything to our physical model of the universe that cannot be explained as well without.

But you are ignoring the elephant in the room. We have evidence gods are fiction.

You strong atheists are the ones adding willy-nilly negative theories. As a type-1 agnostic I have absolutely no physical theory about a god, leprechauns dragons or unicorns. It's you strong atheists who insist on negative theories despite a complete lack of evidence. Ignorant yet arrogantly cock-sure has nothing to do with reason.

Again, the overwhelming evidence gods are people made fiction exists. It is not some nebulous concept. One even has recent historical observation of people inventing a fictional god thus testing the gods are fiction hypothesis. God fiction was observed being creating with the Cargo Cults.

And it's logically inconsistent to assert the gods don't exist when you strong-atheists have no negative evidence. Creating any theory in the complete absence of any supporting evidence makes no sense. So why do you atheists start down this path in the first place of creating negative theories based on ignorance ? I could create a million un-evidenced hypotheses - gods, genii, ghosts, unicorns, mosquitos with three wings, new sub-atomic particles, lichens on Mars .... Why should you spend an instant considering any of these until and unless evidence accrues ?

All the things you cite here are fictional things people made up. We agree.

It's an error to claim that such things exist in the total absence of evidence(as a deist does), and it is a symmetric error to claim they don't in the absence of negative evidence(as a strong atheist does). Learn to ignore the unevidenced claims/hypotheses as agnostics do; as scientists regularly do when there is no or insufficient evidence.

Sorry, but I've shifted paradigms and you have not. I recognize we have overwhelming evidence gods are fictional creations made by humans and you are still arguing science cannot assess the supernatural so can't be used to address the god question.

I think there is something in the psyche of strong-agnostics that prevents then from accepting ignorance as an acceptable status for an issue. What exactly does the strong-atheist conclusion that there is no deity, or perhaps that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter allow you to conclude ? It's unnecessary mental baggage, logical error, and scientific error to make a finding of fact where no evidence exists.

This would be another straw man. In fact, it's a worse straw man than your accidental one of misinterpreting my description of one flavor of agnosticism. In this straw man, you are creating a straw reason for why I don't agree with your philosophy.

It's ludicrous. Why would I not be able to accept the vast number of unknowns about the Universe? Why can't you accept the evidence that god beliefs are a human creation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And all of his/her posts in the last two weeks and 4 pages have been addressed directly to me. Instead of replying to my last post in which I answered your last post addressed to me, you jumped in to the middle of a protracted conversation I had been having with Tormaline and said that you agreed with him/her. I don't think I'm exactly being the most egotistical being on the surface of the planet if I assume that your post is directed at me.

You're right, it doesn't. I haven't implied it does.

Depends on the discussion. Usually, no, that wouldn't be my answer at all.

And I would say that that is neither the sceptical nor the scientific position to hold.

And, as I've said, I do leave the same philosophical space for both of those to exist.

See, earlier you told me not to confuse your not agreeing with my position with not having read my posts. But it's you saying things like this which lead me to believe that you haven't read my posts. I've addressed the issue of certitude. I've addressed the issue of Zeus (or, if not specifically Zeus, things of that ilk). And, if you were cognisant of what I've said about those things, then you wouldn't be saying things like this because you'd know that they don't address my position at all and, even if they did, then the answers to what you're saying are things I've already posted anyway so your statement would be redundant in any case.

You describe a "teeny tiny possibility of the teapot" then claim I got your position on certitude wrong for applying that description to your position. Who cares what you posted on previous pages? Did you post something that contradicts "teeny tiny possibility of the teapot"?

Whatever your issues are with Tourmaline, they don't apply to my posts. You don't have to reply, who cares? But stop being nasty, it's uncalled for.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You describe a "teeny tiny possibility of the teapot" then claim I got your position on certitude wrong for applying that description to your position.

No I didn't.

Who cares what you posted on previous pages?

Well, if you're posting things which you believe address my position on this subject, then surely it would be helpful to know what my position on this subject actually is? If you don't have the inclination to read what I've said on the subject, I hope you can understand why I wouldn't have the inclination to keep re-posting what I've already said, sometimes more than once.

But stop being nasty, it's uncalled for.

Where have I been "nasty"? If you feel this is the case, report the offending post(s) to the moderators.

 

[Trent Wray]

to the OP:

Based on the logic of the quote, it's saying essentially that an atheist claims to know everything that is possible to know. Many a believer's logic would lead to the same conclusion that they also know everything there is to know.

As an agnostic it's not that I'm saying, "I don't know if the invisible fence is real or not" .... I'm saying I think the atheist and the believer could be wrong.

Because people have been known to be wrong .

I think it's taking the "grey" position .... not the black or white. And there are grey areas that exist in life, they are not "nowhere". They come into being all the time. Like the future, for example ...

 

[Mister Agenda]

Most atheists hold the position they could (conceivably) be wrong. So...?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

to the OP:

Based on the logic of the quote, it's saying essentially that an atheist claims to know everything that is possible to know. Many a believer's logic would lead to the same conclusion that they also know everything there is to know.

As an agnostic it's not that I'm saying, "I don't know if the invisible fence is real or not" .... I'm saying I think the atheist and the believer could be wrong.

Because people have been known to be wrong .

I think it's taking the "grey" position .... not the black or white. And there are grey areas that exist in life, they are not "nowhere". They come into being all the time. Like the future, for example ...

Of course you can make the assessment the other guy could be wrong. That seems likely to be true of any of us assessing someone else's conclusions.

But are you equally uncertain of your own conclusions? And are you equally uncertain about each of your conclusions?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You describe a "teeny tiny possibility of the teapot" then claim I got your position on certitude wrong for applying that description to your position.

No I didn't.

ST, it's your very own words you are denying:

...But I can also admit the teeny-tiny Russell's Teapot possibility that that reality is actually real and I'm just dreaming this life as a butterfly in their world. Or whatever....
Strictly speaking, I'm saying that everything is unknowable.

Where have I been "nasty"? If you feel this is the case, report the offending post(s) to the moderators.

Not every rude post warrants reporting.

This isn't a discussion that warrants the level of defensiveness you've displayed.

 

[MikeSun5]

On what evidence do you add gods to your list of potential hypotheses?

Ah, now we're getting to the nitty gritty. I was just about to complain that it seemed unfair that agnostics were being asked to defend God in this thread, when agnostics really don't have the answers. We freely admit we don't know them.

To answer your question, you know very well that I have no evidence for a deity. I don't have evidence against one, either. It is this ambiguity that breeds agnosticism, IMO. Also, when asked questions like the one you posed, many times I end up leaning towards IGnosticism. Like Tumblehome mentioned, the concept of "God" has evolved away from the traditional concept over time, and the lack of a coherent definition of a deity adds to the confusion.

Yet you want to continue considering the god hypothesis.

That was my fault for playing Lo-Carb-Vegitarian-Monster's advocate and addressing the "god hypothesis" in the first place. As a self-proclaimed agnostic, I should have stuck with my "I don't know" response. I see now that some of my attempts to explain my agnosticism can be viewed as support of a deity. My bad. I remain open to be convinced either way.

Similar to the Holographic Universe Theory, ghostly apparitions, or even Harry Potter and the Leprechauns (my new band name, btw). Show me they're real and I'll believe you. Until then, I'm going with "I don't know."

Also, I don't think prefacing an "I don't know," with a "Probably not, but..." takes any weight away from the uncertainty.

 

[MikeSun5]

Your position, that there is no evidence for or against gods existing, fails to consider the wealth of evidence gods are fiction. Your position is one of the standard, "can't test the supernatural" positions the scientific community has taken.

I understand how frustratingly convenient that is, but the lack of evidence remains. Science can't yet prove that our entire universe isn't some forgotten science experiment under some kid's bed.

At some point in the future, the scientific community is going to have to take the position gods are fictional. Why? Because the evidence supports that conclusion.

Not entirely true.... This statement assumes that we have all available evidence, and we will collect no more. That is incorrect, whether we're discussing a deity, or quantum foam, or anything else.

...and as far as the Harry Potter analogy... there are some who seem to believe it's real.

 

[Trent Wray]

Most atheists hold the position they could (conceivably) be wrong. So...?

So ..... one of the ways we decide what's "true" or not, is by examining what others have found to be true in trusting our own judgement. We look for confirmation. If any majority from a group shows to be "wrong" ... it is cause to discredit them and give you reason to re-examine your own views.

Of course you can make the assessment the other guy could be wrong. That seems likely to be true of any of us assessing someone else's conclusions.

But are you equally uncertain of your own conclusions? And are you equally uncertain about each of your conclusions?

Equally is not the word I would use. I don't view all possibilities as equal. It's not practical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand how frustratingly convenient that is, but the lack of evidence remains. Science can't yet prove that our entire universe isn't some forgotten science experiment under some kid's bed.

I'm not the least bit frustrated. I'm very confident I'm forward thinking on this issue.

You are ignoring the obvious. There is evidence gods are fiction. There is no evidence they are not. Why would anyone need to disprove something established as having originated as fiction?

Not entirely true.... This statement assumes that we have all available evidence, and we will collect no more. That is incorrect, whether we're discussing a deity, or quantum foam, or anything else.

This is a straw man. It doesn't reflect what I've said at all.

We have more than enough evidence to draw a certain conclusion, gods are fictional beings humans invented. Unless and until new evidence contradicting that conclusion surfaces, it remains a solid conclusion, gods are fiction. Nothing in that statement says I'm predicting the future. But I am saying there is no reason to deny reality because new evidence might be found in the future.

...and as far as the Harry Potter analogy... there are some who seem to believe it's real.

Pfft. There are billions who don't recognize gods are fiction. So what that a couple folks believe the same about HP?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

ST, it's your very own words you are denying:

I didn't deny I posted that.

This isn't a discussion that warrants the level of defensiveness you've displayed.

I'm not displaying defensiveness, I'm displaying an unwillingness to continually repost things that I have already gone over in detail for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to find out what my position actually is before deciding to argue against what they think it might be, as well as an unwillingness to defend positions that I do not hold

 

[stevea]

It's not a straw man. I said, "There are many points of view of both atheism and agnosticism. We can talk about two..." Since that doesn't say a single thing about any specific person's flavor of agnosticism, whatever your gripe is about my comment, straw man is not applicable.

You MIS-characterize what agnostics can potentially believe when you say "really an atheist". The fundamental idea of agnosticism is that the truth value of the god proposition is unknown or unknowable. You've created a nonsense category to argue against - the definition of strawman !

With that in mind, I cannot help posting:

Adds to the evidence that people who post animated gifs are incapable of producing a coherent argument. Childish much ?

Your straw man: You have misstated my description of the first flavor of agnostic I described. But I see from your next statement that you deal with the question of gods differently and I think that is where the 'miscommunication' is.

I did not misstate your unrealistic, inconsistent and denigrating characterization of agnostics. I stated that your position is not an agnostic position and I presented you with a more realistic characterization of similar agnostic thinking. One without the obvious logical inconsistency you inserted.

The agnostic I was describing has essentially concluded, gods don't exist, but has an issue with the fact one cannot 'prove' the negative, no gods exist. Your flavor of agnosticism comes close, but doesn't exactly fit that description.

Then obviously they are not agnostic - again a ridiculous mischaracterization.
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
they define 6 reasonable categories of agnosticism and NONE of them include your outlandish insulting claims like "has essentially concluded, gods don't exist" or "really [are] an atheist".

But the point is not who is right, the point is simply describing different approaches to the god question and discussing those different philosophical approaches. You seem to be posting with a bit of annoyance that people don't buy your view. But perhaps I am misreading your post.

No - you are not describing any reasonable categorization of what rational consistent people can possibly think. You invented up an insulting illogical, inconsistent strawman in order to denigrate others.

I take issue with your claim we have no evidence against gods existing therefore we can have no opinion one way or the other. That's like saying we have no evidence for or against Harry Potter's existence. We have evidence Harry Potter is fiction. Why the double standard regarding god fiction? Or do you insist none of us can have an opinion Harry Potter is not a real being either?

Do you understand what constitutes evidence ? Have any clue ?

Let me suggest a definition where "Harry Potter" some humanoid who dwells in a Hogwarts school somewhere in England. We could do an exhaustive search of England, but since it's a well populated place with good records and since there is no record of such a place - then we do have actual physical evidence making the existence of Hogwarts, and by definition Potter excruciatingly improbable.

We have absolutely no comparable physical evidence against the existence of gods generally.

Can you draw a conclusion about the Earth's crust consisting of moving plates despite the fact we haven't measured the movement of every square inch of crust? Can you draw a conclusion about DNA or do you have to check every combination of nucleic acid sequences before you can say DNA contains a blueprint for life?

Illogical. All of science is based on evidence from example experiments. Your problem isn't that you don't have enough evidence - it's that you have absolutely ZERO evidence against the general god question.

We draw many conclusions about all kinds of things without having to test every single one or every square inch. How many god myths do we need to test before drawing a conclusion that all gods are mythical beings? It's my premise that this is again the double standard rearing its head.

You are off the rails. Myths and Bibles and Torahs and the Popul Vu ARE NOT EVIDENCE for any god. Discrediting their content doesn't even negate the specific conception of god, much less the general concept.

Also you haven't tested any serious examples. You are only looking at artifacts of primitive religions instead of testing the general concept. It's as tho' you've looked all over your bathtub and based on that have concluded that frogs don't exist. It's a nonsense form of argument by extrapolation.

I don't have to find the fossil record of every breed of dog to conclude humans affected their evolution. The fact I can't prove Harry Potter is fiction does not mean the evidence HP is fiction is uncertain. It is certain that Harry Potter is fiction. Science does not require I consider all fiction to need disproving once it is written or described by a person. People create fiction. All the evidence supports the conclusion that all god fiction has been created by people. At some point, I can make a broader statement about the nature of gods, and that nature is fiction.

You have to produce at least one piece of physical evidence, and you haven't.

Your argument that writings, whether truth, fiction or nonsense represents evidence is ar fallacious argument.

Your position, that there is no evidence for or against gods existing, fails to consider the wealth of evidence gods are fiction. Your position is one of the standard, "can't test the supernatural" positions the scientific community has taken.

My feeling about that position has a couple sides. One, as I've been saying, it ignores the evidence people invented gods. Gods are fictional. Two, it is a double standard. We recognize all sorts of fiction and don't have to make special cases for why the fact something is fiction is irrelevant to the possibility that thing exists.

Oh - I think there is a lot of evidence that human culture has invented a lot of specific fictional primitive gods, most of which clearly don't exist by evidence. It's somewhat simple to get physical evidence against a deity inhabiting a mountain top, river or tree. It's more difficult to gather evidence against more abstract sky-daddies but the fact they are often anthropomorphized and derive from variant myth gives us cause to discount that description as invention. Discrediting the Tao which leaves little or no evidence around is quite a problem.

The argument IS NOT that human cultural gods are fictional, but that no conception of god exists. Your arguments indicates that perhaps you don't understand what constitutes evidence. And have at best a tenuous grasp of deductive logic.

And three, taking a non-committal position about god beliefs merely kicks the can down the road. At some point in the future, the scientific community is going to have to take the position gods are fictional. Why? Because the evidence supports that conclusion.

Your emotional zeal to draw a conclusion in the complete absence of evidence is called bias.

But you are ignoring the elephant in the room. We have evidence gods are fiction.

And I have evidence that are no frogs exist based on a complete examination of my bathtub. Don't you understand how lame your wild extrapolation argument is ?

Again, the overwhelming evidence gods are people made fiction exists. It is not some nebulous concept. One even has recent historical observation of people inventing a fictional god thus testing the gods are fiction hypothesis. God fiction was observed being creating with the Cargo Cults.

Cargo cults did not invent new dieties - nor is it relevant unless you are looking for another trivial primitive deity to knock down. Can't you understand that even if all human-cultural gods are proved to be fictional - that doesn't say anything about existence of some other concept of god ?

Sorry, but I've shifted paradigms and you have not. I recognize we have overwhelming evidence gods are fictional creations made by humans and you are still arguing science cannot assess the supernatural so can't be used to address the god question.

Yes - you've shifted to "proof by refutation of non-evidence" (someone wrote a book/myth with errors, therefore the thing described is non-extant), and "proof by example" (some gods are fictional, therefore all are).. Brilliant examples for this forum.

This would be another straw man. In fact, it's a worse straw man than your accidental one of misinterpreting my description of one flavor of agnosticism. In this straw man, you are creating a straw reason for why I don't agree with your philosophy.

It was speculation on the obvious fact that you, and many people, are highly motivated to create an conclusion in the absence of evidence.

It's ludicrous. Why would I not be able to accept the vast number of unknowns about the Universe? Why can't you accept the evidence that god beliefs are a human creation?

Many god beliefs are fictional. "Ludicrous" describes your reasoning that states that therefore all are. You seem totally focused on culturally generated deities. Perhaps you are motivated by some experience with a religion of something - but it comes across as irrational. Those aren't the only possible conceptions you have to show evidence against..

Let me describe one hypothetical god. Let's say it inhabits more dimensions than we can access. One week 13Bln years ago it set off our 4-D big-bang universe. Then it left and doesn't inhabit this plane any more. There is no hope that we can ever interact w/ such a god since we cannot in my example traverse these alternative dimensions. Unless it left some artifacts around there is no hope we can obtain evidence.

We can imagine less abstract versions. Say some deity has the power to both create our universe and perfectly conceal itself. It decides to not have contact after the B-B.

What evidence could possibly demonstrate that these gods or a zillion variations don't exist ?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Do you understand what constitutes evidence ? Have any clue ?

Let me suggest a definition where "Harry Potter" some humanoid who dwells in a Hogwarts school somewhere in England. We could do an exhaustive search of England, but since it's a well populated place with good records and since there is no record of such a place - then we do have actual physical evidence making the existence of Hogwarts, and by definition Potter excruciatingly improbable.

We have absolutely no comparable physical evidence against the existence of gods generally.

Clearly, Hogwarts is hidden from Muggle perception by magic. You can't expect to find it by searching records or the countryside.

And you seem to be of the opinion that we can't reasonably conclude that supernatural beings don't exist just because they always have ad hoc explanations for why their presence is undetectable.

Just sayin'. Agnostic atheist here. I don't believe in these creatures, I think they are just myths produced by a combination of imagination, time, human nature, and culture. I could be wrong, but with the available information I don't see why I should conclude otherwise.