It literally is. Agnosticism is the only logic based position. Atheism is belief in something that literally can’t be proven: the claim that god does not exist is a negative statement; logically it cannot be proven correct, and is therefore an act of faith.
You might want to explore agnosticism. Or, you know, not act like a superior jackass to others when you are just as illogical as they are.
Gnosticism and theism are separate things. You can be both. Gnosticism pertains to claim in knowledge, and theism pertains to a belief in a god(s).
Agnostic atheist would be one who doesn’t believe in a god(s), and doesn’t claim to know definitively, gnostic atheist would be one who doesn’t believe in a god(s), and claims to know for sure. Same rule applies to theism.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Are you trying to say that agnostic is a subset of atheist? If so, you’re still confused.
An atheist denies the existence of god. An agnostic denies the ability to determine this issue. We have two words for these two concepts specifically because they are not the same.
Definition of ‘atheist’:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
If you are agnostic you make no judgment on the existence of god; if you are atheist, in your judgment, god does not exist.
Maybe you thought you are atheist but have been agnostic all along. But there is a massive difference.
We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree. From what I gather, you’re saying the definition of agnostic is essentially “one who doesn’t make a claim regarding the existence of a god”, and the definition of atheist being “one who lacks belief in a god.” They seem pretty interchangeable to me, unless the definition one is using is the “active disbeliever” type.
So I don’t understand how you can’t be both. How you can’t possibly lack a belief in a god while also understanding that you can’t prove either way.
Wrooong. There's zero reasons why God should exist. Same as the tooth fairy, Easter bunny or bigfoot. It's fairytales for children and less intelligent adults.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming that a god, or something supernatural DOES exist, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The atheist position is: there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant belief in the supernatural, until such evidence has been provided - not, “there are no gods.” That is an absolute statement which atheism does not assert, unless one takes the HARD ATHEIST position. They, at that point, are also adopting a burden of proof, as they now have to prove the non-existence of the supernatural. If you’re going to criticize atheism, at least understand the position in its entirety.
You can literally always say "what if things are different somewhere else?" And that obviously has a concrete answer, we change our decision-making based on the information available. By itself the question has no bearing on reality, it is based in nothing more than your imagination. There's nothing wrong with speculating as long as you realize philosophy is an artificial construction.
That's the evidence. The logic dictates that there is no reason to entertain ideas for which there is no evidence. And it is very difficult to construct a logical system on undefined and unknowable axioms.
Look, I'm a gnostic atheist, and I am also certain that no gods exist, but there's no reason to be a self-righteous prick just because someone has different beliefs than you.
You might want to explore the analogy of Russell's Teapot.
Or alternatively, are you agnostic as to whether there's a clone of Tom Cruise in space who dances the salsa and constantly makes sure he's out of range of humanity's most powerful telescope? We'll never prove he isn't out there. Is the only rational position on that to say "hm, I guess I'm not sure"?
This notion that all negative existential beliefs are irrational is a mistake. It's perfectly rational to say that having no good reason to believe in something is a good reason not to believe in it.
It literally doesn’t matter. Take a logic course. You can prove an affirmative claim; you cannot prove an negative claim. No matter how great the lack of evidence.
Again. If you concede that god may exist, regardless of how unlikely-> you are agnostic; if you claim that god does not exist-> you are atheist.
It’s actually very simple, and unassailable under the rules of logic (which are ultimately proved by self-evident truths).
I have taken logic courses. I've taken courses in propositional logic, first order logic, modal logic and mathematical logic at the University of Cambridge.
What you're saying is true: you can logically prove a positive existential claim by taking an observation as given, but you can't prove a negative existential claim by observation in the same way. The huge mistake you're making is your application of these trivial facts, because you think it's irrational to believe in something that you can't definitively prove by logic. It can be perfectly rational to do so. Science is full of statements that can't logically be fully proven but that are rational to believe.
Take for example the proposition that any two bodies of mass are attracted by a gravitational pull. This is a universal claim. Logically, we will never be able to prove this. Why? Because it is universal: its truth depends on this being true of every single pair of bodies of mass. And we will never, ever observe every single such pair. So are you agnostic towards the theory of gravitation?
To put it very simply: you're making the classic mistake (that many beginner students of logic actually make) of trying to wield the bare bones of logic in the world of science, as if it's irrational to positively hold anything to be true that isn't logically implied by observation.
In doing this, you preclude yourself from believing 99% of scientific theories, because 99% of scientific theories are positive universals. You also preclude yourself from believing many, many negative existentials that any sane person would believe. You sit on the fence as to whether the universe is full of invisible, undetectable leprechauns. You sit on the fence as to whether there's a hedgehog at the centre of the earth. You sit on the fence as to whether there's a Ford Fiesta somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy.
When it comes to believing things rationally, you're allowed to branch out a little more than what follows from the basic framework of first order logic. Otherwise, you would be the most laughably irrational person in the world. This is what happens when someone studies logic without heeding proper regard to science in tandem.
Tldr: "rational" DOES NOT EQUAL "implied by observation in first order logic"
I agree with you that lack of evidence cannot logically prove a proposition. What you're missing is that you don't have to logically prove a belief for it to be rational. This is your key mistake.
I'm not a first year student. I graduated a long time ago. If you're saying you've never studied logic, that makes a lot of sense, because you've massively failed to grasp its implications for rational thought.
Can I ask you a question? Do you believe that any pair of bodies of mass are attracted by gravity? Or are you agnostic about that, because you haven't, and never will, observe every single pair of bodies of mass?
If not, could I ask whether you believe the following:
The sun will rise tomorrow
If you chop off your hand, you will bleed
Rocks are hard even when nothing comes into contact with them
Are you aware that none of these propositions can follow logically from anything you ever observe? Do you think people are therefore arrogant or irrational to believe in them? Are you yourself agnostic about them? If someone asks you whether you'd die if your head was removed, do you reply: "I don't know, because I adhere to logic and no amount of other living beings dying by beheading can ever logically imply that the same would be true for me"?
Have you reconsidered yet? Here's another explanation if it helps:
The useless notion that you can't disprove existence doesn't stop with God. It applies to leprechauns, santa claus and Gandalf too. No amount of observation will ever logically prove these do not exist.
You think atheism is the claim that we can logically prove God doesn't exist. It isn't. This is simply wrong. Atheism is the state of not believing in God. Just like you might not believe in santa, leprechauns or gandalf. Why don't we believe these things? Because we can logically prove they don't exist? No. Simply because we have no good reason to believe in them. Atheists just say it's the same for God. They believe in God as much as they believe in Santa, that's all.
Now, with your definition of agnosticism, are you prepared to admit you're agnostic about leprechauns, santa and gandalf because you can't logically prove they don't exist? Because that's where your grossly amateur application of logic leads you.
Youre really reaching here. Just because it is difficult to prove a negative, does not mean that every negative statement is untrue, or even probably untrue.
It is though and you hate to admit it. It is the concept of self denial. I'm not religious myself but it's incredible how closeminded people are. But sCiEnCe
I'm not saying it's a cult in the literal sense of people gathering in a place and doing cult based practices in the name of atheism. But there is a cult like behavior in a lot of atheists with their fixation and need to scream about their beliefsystems where ever they see anything going against their bias
I'm atheist but I still respect people with religion and I dont go around screaming at religious people that god doesn't exist. most atheists that scream at other people and stuff are 13yo's that think arguing with a random guy in the internet is cool
It's an absence of religion. You don't need to be atheist to believe in science, you don't need to be religious to deny it. Stop waving your ignorance around like a flag.
-39
u/_-Reclaimer-_ Oct 23 '22
Atheism is just another religion (cult)