Agnosticism is more honest than Atheism

[pokeegeorge]

Agnostics say "We cannot know if there is a God."

Atheists say "We know there is no God."

Their main line of defense of this premise so far to me here is that, "There is no evidence there IS a God, therefore there is no God."

Then the naysayers of the naysayers say "Prove there is no God."

Then the Atheists say, "YOU have to prove there IS a God; I don't have to prove there ISN'T a God." Why? Since we are making a claim of something, THEY only resided in Unbiased Land.

Not true. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God. It is in fact a stance of CERTAINTY.

Agnosticism says no one can be certain. My family was agnostic, and I grew up in this milieu. I don't understand Atheism and this is why. Please correct or inform.

[keithprosser3]

I had to go back several pages to discover this, but many moons ago, instantc posted this innocuous looking remark:

In other areas of law it is not always that simple. Sometimes the guilt is presumed automatically, for example, and it is then up to the defendant to establish a valid defense for himself.

It seems JohnA did not believe such a reversal of the usual burden of proof existed anywhere.

The law states that a person is innocent till proven guilty...You need to convince us why your philosophy is superior to accepted law and BoP.

Well, I think that instantc has established - beyond reasonable doubt - that in the case of road accidents in Germany and Holland, the BoP is indeed reversed. I think that fully justifies what instantc said above and that JohnA was mistaken in thinking that the usual BoP rules are universal.

Quite what the last 8 pages or so has had to do with whether agnosticism or atheism is more honest will no doubt soon be revealed.

[JohnA]

I had to go back several pages to discover this, but many moons ago, instantc posted this innocuous looking remark:

In other areas of law it is not always that simple. Sometimes the guilt is presumed automatically, for example, and it is then up to the defendant to establish a valid defense for himself.

It seems JohnA did not believe such a reversal of the usual burden of proof existed anywhere.

The law states that a person is innocent till proven guilty...You need to convince us why your philosophy is superior to accepted law and BoP.

Well, I think that instantc has established - beyond reasonable doubt - that in the case of road accidents in Germany and Holland, the BoP is indeed reversed. I think that fully justifies what instantc said above and that JohnA was mistaken in thinking that the usual BoP rules are universal.

Quite what the last 8 pages or so has had to do with whether agnosticism or atheism is more honest will no doubt soon be revealed.

That is your opinion.

Why not just save a step and say :
Look Mom, strick liability exists therefore we need to chance the burden of proof in accedemic debate. Oh and btw I should remember to never visit Germany or the Netherlands. I will be GUILTY when I enter the country automatically, but I have the option to prove MYSELF innocent without a court since courts do not prove anything but they can let yourself prove yourself yourself innocent.

Assertion fallacy is not a good way to support illogical claims, or decreing them as fact when you have no argument. This seems to be a trend with the religious. ....

Please continue.

[keithprosser3]

That is your opinion.

True, but I doubt if its just me with that opinion. You were flat wrong to state that the BoP is always one way, even if the example instantc used was a tad obscure!

If that isn't what you were arguing then instantc and everyone else has been mistaken in thinking that is precisely what you were arguing. Pulling it back at this late stage to the original debate is not going to fool anyone, nor is straw manning about getting arrested if you go to Germany or any of the other desperate (and unconvincing)ploys you are using to avoid - apparently - admitting to not being completely au fait with the details of German traffic regulations, ignorance of which I think most people would not feel shame admitting to.

[JohnA]

That is your opinion.

True, but I doubt if its just me with that opinion. You were flat wrong to state that the BoP is always one way, even if the example instantc used was a tad obscure!

If that isn't what you were arguing then instantc and everyone else has been mistaken in thinking that is precisely what you were arguing. Pulling it back at this late stage to the original debate is not going to fool anyone, nor is straw manning about getting arrested if you go to Germany or any of the other desperate (and unconvincing)ploys you are using to avoid - apparently - admitting to not being completely au fait with the details of German traffic regulations, ignorance of which I think most people would not feel shame admitting to.

More opinion from you in addition to you accusing me of being dishonest, neglecting that the EU human rights rejects instantc's claim. Yet instantc can not even tell us what the bop should be in debate if it was reversed. Lol.

[Angel]

If after I confront a weak atheist with such INCONSISTENCIES and they try to deny it and change the story, why should I trust that they're really weak atheist or not hiding something (like their true beliefs or views)?

We are all human. Some are more consistent than others, but we are all inconsistent in some fashion.

But what are our true beliefs? There are those we might explicit espouse and then there are those we display in our behaviour that we might not fully reflect on. I suspect you are right and most atheist can at times be stronger than they let on.

I think one problem here is that it is difficult to separate the weak claim "I lack a belief in God" from the rejection of all the arguments and evidences that have ever been put forward in the favour of God. It is difficult to imagine they have not met one argument they have had to reject to sustain their lack of belief. In reality I suspect most weak atheist have had to be sufficiently sure to reach decisions about a lot of things being not true in order to sustain their lack of belief. It is meaningless or just plain evasive to keep insisting "I lack a belief about that". For instance they can't be unsure there are no miracles. They really have to be sure about this because it is an opinion about how to characterise an unlikely event. If they are not sure that say surviving a parachute failing to open is not a miracle you get agnosticism. To say "I lack a belief that was a miracle" is just a way of not thinking about the question. But being sure there are no miracles which I would say is a strong belief, does not mean the lack of belief about God is also strong. Maybe someone is strong on the Abrahamic God and weak on deism.

Sorry for the late reply. I did not see this post until now when I was checking on a post. I agree with your points for the most part but I used 'generic' to refer to a class or group (or Gods collectively). That's what I saw that Artie was referring to when he responded with "We know people make up gods".

I also know that we can all be inconsistent at some point but what I've been focusing on is if we will admit the inconsistencies to begin with and how do we react when we are confronted with those inconsistencies. That's where the dodging, twisting of positions, and denial comes in which I see as signs of someone not being able to accept the truth. I'm willing to go as far as digging into people's past posts to expose inconsistencies and if they deny it or try to change the subject, then there's already a problem of honesty there in which case I won't let them off easy. It's a matter of cornering the person until they have no where to run from that point.

(Edit): Artie makes the point that He does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And there is likely a long lists of gods he strongly does not believe in I suspect. There is also likely many ways of understanding and describing God that might also bee added to the things that a weak atheist strongly rejects. For most atheists the Abrahamic version of God falls under the same list as the Spaghetti Flying. The rejection list does not support a rejection of some generic maybe deistic version of God, yet there is still no reason or evidence to believe in such God.

So maybe we need to be clear as to which gods we are strong on and which we are weak on. As I say I suspect most atheist who claim weak atheism are stronger about the Abrahamic God than they often admit. This not mean they are not weak about some diluted generic version of God who maybe created stuff and wishes us well.

This does not apply to Artie. In post post #471 I have quotes from him stating that he is COMPLETELY neutral on the issue of God - no views, no beliefs or disbeliefs, etc. He has stated,
"I have no opinion, no beliefs, I don't believe gods exist I don't believe gods don't exist"... He did not specify any god but he's referring to gods in general, which I take as including them all instead of singling out one or two. He should not be making any claims about a god's existence if he holds true to his words.