Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20490
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

AgnosticBoy wrote: I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.
For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #291

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #289]
In essence 'agnosticism' tells us nothing at all and is unhelpful as any kind of logical or default -position.
It is not the task of Agnosticism to make assertions re The Question [Do we exist within a creation?]
The position is helpful in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism.
You are right that 'emergence' (one might say evolution as a theoretical option) is the alternative to intelligent creation by some kind of cosmic being. The evidence is of Life (however it started) being a basic living cell group reacting rather than behaving. As the organism develops in an evolutionary way through sea bugs and slugs of the Cambrian through the fish of Devonian, Amphibians od the Permian, reptiles of the Triassic, dinosaurs and mammals, the animal reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes awareness and awareness becomes society, just in pack and tribe animals at first. Thus consciousness evolves just as life -forms evolve. The evidence is of emergence, not creation.
While you acknowledged that I am 'right' you leave out other information I wrote in order to reach your conclusion that "The evidence is of emergence, not creation.".
I suppose the reason for this, has to do with the requirement to maintain the Atheist creed "lacking belief in God(s)" which - when stated as "The evidence is of emergence, not creation." is your answer to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?"
This seems the better theory as it is based on the evidence, and alternative possibilities such as cosmic minds remain far - fetched ideas without much of logical or evidential support.
There is knowledge available which is useful to the position of Agnosticism in relation to The Question.
The knowledge itself might not be very attractive to some sub-sets of Atheism and Theism and may be avoided or seen as unworthy of scrutiny, but Agnosticism - being more reasonable - will investigate any and all avenues of enquiry available, no matter how 'far-fetched' these avenues might seem to those who have already formulated contrary beliefs.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7857
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #292

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:30 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #289]
In essence 'agnosticism' tells us nothing at all and is unhelpful as any kind of logical or default -position.
It is not the task of Agnosticism to make assertions re The Question [Do we exist within a creation?]
The position is helpful in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism.
Bias is noting to do with agnosticism (in the sense of not knowing). It is everything to do with the assessment of evidence. Reason of course takes account of bias which is why we should argue both sides and let people decide. Bias is a red herring here, especially in agnosticism as a knowledge position.
You are right that 'emergence' (one might say evolution as a theoretical option) is the alternative to intelligent creation by some kind of cosmic being. The evidence is of Life (however it started) being a basic living cell group reacting rather than behaving. As the organism develops in an evolutionary way through sea bugs and slugs of the Cambrian through the fish of Devonian, Amphibians od the Permian, reptiles of the Triassic, dinosaurs and mammals, the animal reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes awareness and awareness becomes society, just in pack and tribe animals at first. Thus consciousness evolves just as life -forms evolve. The evidence is of emergence, not creation.
While you acknowledged that I am 'right' you leave out other information I wrote in order to reach your conclusion that "The evidence is of emergence, not creation.".
I suppose the reason for this, has to do with the requirement to maintain the Atheist creed "lacking belief in God(s)" which - when stated as "The evidence is of emergence, not creation." is your answer to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?"
Your 'information' is irrelevant. If I made my case that the evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent (evolved) then your arguments fail,. whether i demolished them individually or not.
This seems the better theory as it is based on the evidence, and alternative possibilities such as cosmic minds remain far - fetched ideas without much of logical or evidential support.
There is knowledge available which is useful to the position of Agnosticism in relation to The Question.
The knowledge itself might not be very attractive to some sub-sets of Atheism and Theism and may be avoided or seen as unworthy of scrutiny, but Agnosticism - being more reasonable - will investigate any and all avenues of enquiry available, no matter how 'far-fetched' these avenues might seem to those who have already formulated contrary beliefs.
You are certainly using 'agnosticism' is the very common (but arguable) usage of relating to someone arguing the pros and cons of the Theism - debate. Which agnosticism (not knowing whether there is a god or not) does not address. Whether one believes it or not is what is relevant here. Your effort to wield bias -accusations to discredit atheism does you no good. Reasonable people should consider any valid evidence whether they like it or not. It is too terrible easy for the Theists to accuse atheists of not accepting Theist arguments because they don't like them. When in fact they are rejected because they are unsound. I also suspect that we have projection here, like you swiped at my evidence for emergence on the irrelevant grounds that i didn't deal with all of your points. That looked to me like your dismissing my case on irrelevant grounds just because you didn't like it.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #293

Post by William »

It is not the task of Agnosticism to make assertions re The Question [Do we exist within a creation?]
The position is helpful in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism.
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #292]
Bias is nothing to do with agnosticism (in the sense of not knowing).
We agree.
The position [Agnosticism] is helpful [to the agnostic] in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism, as bias has much to do with those positions.
It is everything to do with the assessment of evidence.
Disagree. Form the position of Agnosticism, the assessment of evidence by agnostics, does not require the individual place any importance on parts of the evidence over other parts of the evidence.
If any bias is present re the position, it is the bias toward treating all information equally.
Reason of course takes account of bias which is why we should argue both sides and let people decide.
Agnosticism is a position where one portion of the people have decided that there is not enough information to make a decisive call either way.

[As a position, Agnosticism is also a 'side' and it is not the correct term to use "both sides" - implying that Atheism and Theism are somehow 'real' as 'sides' but Agnosticism is 'imaginary' as a 'side'...

"Do we exist within a creation?" One side says 'yes' another side says 'no' and yet another side say's 'more information is required before any definitive answer can reasonably be given'.

Image
Your 'information' is irrelevant.
All information is relevant to the Agnostic position. That is what Agnostics work with. [ftfy]

I think you are referring to information which is not relevant to the position you support?
If I made my case that the evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent (evolved) then your arguments fail,. whether i demolished them individually or not.
To my knowledge, neither you or anyone else has made such a case based on the information that in relation to life on Earth, if consciousness emerged from the universe prior to the formation of Earth, it is reasonable to understand that a self aware universe [Cosmic Mind] could then organize matter into forms which it could then use to organize matter into life-forms on an individual planet.

That is a highly reasonable explanation for the existence of consciousness [re the hard problem] and does not infringe on the claim that consciousness is an emergent property of physical material.
Rather - it incorporates the claim of emergence with the claim of intelligent creation.
You are certainly using 'agnosticism' is the very common (but arguable) usage of relating to someone arguing the pros and cons of the Theism - debate. Which agnosticism (not knowing whether there is a god or not) does not address.
Agnosticism allows the agnostic to address all things which are not known about, as well as all things which are known about.
This accumulation of knowledge is not sorted by way of filing 'that data which useful to agnosticism' and 'that data which is not useful to agnosticism.' All information is useful to those supporting Agnosticism. [Agnostics].

Agnosticism deals with information and is not limited only to information re the subject of GOD, because all information is relative to The Question.
Agnosticism is - in essence - a way of dealing with information, and scientists who apply strict rules to the process of science are able to stick to those rules because they are being agnostic in the way they go about formulating and following said rules.

In the same way, agnostics - re the subject of GOD - allow for all information to be tabled, and sorted. Theist-based information and atheist-based information are on the sorting table as there is no bias as to what type of information is or is not acceptable to Agnosticism/agnostics.
Whether one believes it or not is what is relevant here. Your effort to wield bias -accusations to discredit atheism does you no good.
I am not trying to discredit atheism. I am simply pointing out that there is resistance to some types of information over other types of information in - and coming from - both Atheism and Theism positions.
The pointing out the observation is not an attempt to discredit. It is an acknowledgement of actual reaction and actual reaction is information and information is what agnostics are interested in, for the purpose of trying to understand the information from the more reasonable position of the non-bias nature of Agnosticism - per the OPQ.
Reasonable people should consider any valid evidence whether they like it or not.
Precisely an aspect of the creed of Agnosticism, with the exception of 'valid' and 'like it or not' as this infers bias. Information is not filtered in that manner, by agnostics.

Reasonable people [agnostics] should consider any evidence. [ftfy]

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1128 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #294

Post by Purple Knight »

Elijah John wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:58 amIt seems to me that atheism is the simply the other side of the coin. The flip side to the Fundamentalist when it comes to certainty regarding God and religion. The atheist is dogmatic in his or her denial.
I agree. And I still classify myself as an atheist because I wouldn't worship God if you showed him to me.

Just like you wouldn't worship me if I was omnipotent and happened to have created you. You shouldn't, imo.

In fact, I would say the Christian is more reasonable than the atheist specifically because of that thing Christians do that I hate which is they take this probably imaginary being that canonically murders people by thousands and tens of thousands and they project their ideas of goodness onto it. I hate it and I don't see the purpose to it but it makes them reasonable in practice.

Yes, I admit I'm being unreasonable but I see it as in the service of Truth. If this God thing is doing things I see as evil I shouldn't worship it. That would be wrong. Maybe I go to Hell for it. So be it. And Truth doesn't make my life any easier for pursuing it. And it's unreasonable. And in a way I'm more religious then the Christian and less reasonable because the Christian is just doing what he ought to do to get the reward, and he is basically just being logical. I'm saying, no, there are times when you shouldn't just do whatever to get the reward. I'm punishing myself, perhaps for nothing, in the service of an ideal that might not mean anything. (But I also don't think this scenario in which the Christian God actually exists is very likely.)

The one thing I have on the Christian, is that I will tell you when I am illogically following some destructive moral ideal because I think I ought to, and when I am making a logical judgment based on evidence and reason. I think the Christian, mostly anyway, at least from where I sit, either can't tell the difference or has it completely backwards. But in practice he is still more reasonable. The agnostic is most reasonable of all.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #295

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #294]
I still classify myself as an atheist because I wouldn't worship God if you showed him to me.
Atheism is contingent on lacking belief in gods [re The Question - "Do we exist within a creation?"]

Refusing to worship any God shown to you, is not an act of Atheism, once the God has been revealed to you.
If this God thing is doing things I see as evil I shouldn't worship it.
The lack of belief in gods is not contingent on the question of morality.

If upon being shown God, you observe evil actions, then yes - it is reasonable not to worship the God. That reaction is not contingent on being in support of either Theism, or Atheism, nor Agnosticism, as any individual from these positions can all refuse to worship said God, irrespective of the positions they hold on The Question...["Do we exist within a creation?"]

The Question, is not one based in morality, so nor will the answer be based in morality.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #296

Post by brunumb »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:39 pm
William wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:30 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #289]
In essence 'agnosticism' tells us nothing at all and is unhelpful as any kind of logical or default -position.
It is not the task of Agnosticism to make assertions re The Question [Do we exist within a creation?]
The position is helpful in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism.
Bias is noting to do with agnosticism (in the sense of not knowing). It is everything to do with the assessment of evidence. Reason of course takes account of bias which is why we should argue both sides and let people decide. Bias is a red herring here, especially in agnosticism as a knowledge position.
You are right that 'emergence' (one might say evolution as a theoretical option) is the alternative to intelligent creation by some kind of cosmic being. The evidence is of Life (however it started) being a basic living cell group reacting rather than behaving. As the organism develops in an evolutionary way through sea bugs and slugs of the Cambrian through the fish of Devonian, Amphibians od the Permian, reptiles of the Triassic, dinosaurs and mammals, the animal reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes awareness and awareness becomes society, just in pack and tribe animals at first. Thus consciousness evolves just as life -forms evolve. The evidence is of emergence, not creation.
While you acknowledged that I am 'right' you leave out other information I wrote in order to reach your conclusion that "The evidence is of emergence, not creation.".
I suppose the reason for this, has to do with the requirement to maintain the Atheist creed "lacking belief in God(s)" which - when stated as "The evidence is of emergence, not creation." is your answer to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?"
Your 'information' is irrelevant. If I made my case that the evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent (evolved) then your arguments fail,. whether i demolished them individually or not.
This seems the better theory as it is based on the evidence, and alternative possibilities such as cosmic minds remain far - fetched ideas without much of logical or evidential support.
There is knowledge available which is useful to the position of Agnosticism in relation to The Question.
The knowledge itself might not be very attractive to some sub-sets of Atheism and Theism and may be avoided or seen as unworthy of scrutiny, but Agnosticism - being more reasonable - will investigate any and all avenues of enquiry available, no matter how 'far-fetched' these avenues might seem to those who have already formulated contrary beliefs.
You are certainly using 'agnosticism' is the very common (but arguable) usage of relating to someone arguing the pros and cons of the Theism - debate. Which agnosticism (not knowing whether there is a god or not) does not address. Whether one believes it or not is what is relevant here. Your effort to wield bias -accusations to discredit atheism does you no good. Reasonable people should consider any valid evidence whether they like it or not. It is too terrible easy for the Theists to accuse atheists of not accepting Theist arguments because they don't like them. When in fact they are rejected because they are unsound. I also suspect that we have projection here, like you swiped at my evidence for emergence on the irrelevant grounds that i didn't deal with all of your points. That looked to me like your dismissing my case on irrelevant grounds just because you didn't like it.
:? Something wrong with how this response is formatted. Which parts of the post should be attributed to William and which to TRANSPONDER?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #297

Post by brunumb »

William wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:03 pm
It is not the task of Agnosticism to make assertions re The Question [Do we exist within a creation?]
The position is helpful in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism.
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #292]
Bias is nothing to do with agnosticism (in the sense of not knowing).
We agree.
The position [Agnosticism] is helpful [to the agnostic] in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.

In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism, as bias has much to do with those positions.
It is everything to do with the assessment of evidence.
Disagree. Form the position of Agnosticism, the assessment of evidence by agnostics, does not require the individual place any importance on parts of the evidence over other parts of the evidence.
If any bias is present re the position, it is the bias toward treating all information equally.
Reason of course takes account of bias which is why we should argue both sides and let people decide.
Agnosticism is a position where one portion of the people have decided that there is not enough information to make a decisive call either way.

[As a position, Agnosticism is also a 'side' and it is not the correct term to use "both sides" - implying that Atheism and Theism are somehow 'real' as 'sides' but Agnosticism is 'imaginary' as a 'side'...

"Do we exist within a creation?" One side says 'yes' another side says 'no' and yet another side say's 'more information is required before any definitive answer can reasonably be given'.

Image
Your 'information' is irrelevant.
All information is relevant to the Agnostic position. That is what Agnostics work with. [ftfy]

I think you are referring to information which is not relevant to the position you support?
If I made my case that the evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent (evolved) then your arguments fail,. whether i demolished them individually or not.
To my knowledge, neither you or anyone else has made such a case based on the information that in relation to life on Earth, if consciousness emerged from the universe prior to the formation of Earth, it is reasonable to understand that a self aware universe [Cosmic Mind] could then organize matter into forms which it could then use to organize matter into life-forms on an individual planet.

That is a highly reasonable explanation for the existence of consciousness [re the hard problem] and does not infringe on the claim that consciousness is an emergent property of physical material.
Rather - it incorporates the claim of emergence with the claim of intelligent creation.
You are certainly using 'agnosticism' is the very common (but arguable) usage of relating to someone arguing the pros and cons of the Theism - debate. Which agnosticism (not knowing whether there is a god or not) does not address.
Agnosticism allows the agnostic to address all things which are not known about, as well as all things which are known about.
This accumulation of knowledge is not sorted by way of filing 'that data which useful to agnosticism' and 'that data which is not useful to agnosticism.' All information is useful to those supporting Agnosticism. [Agnostics].

Agnosticism deals with information and is not limited only to information re the subject of GOD, because all information is relative to The Question.
Agnosticism is - in essence - a way of dealing with information, and scientists who apply strict rules to the process of science are able to stick to those rules because they are being agnostic in the way they go about formulating and following said rules.

In the same way, agnostics - re the subject of GOD - allow for all information to be tabled, and sorted. Theist-based information and atheist-based information are on the sorting table as there is no bias as to what type of information is or is not acceptable to Agnosticism/agnostics.
Whether one believes it or not is what is relevant here. Your effort to wield bias -accusations to discredit atheism does you no good.
I am not trying to discredit atheism. I am simply pointing out that there is resistance to some types of information over other types of information in - and coming from - both Atheism and Theism positions.
The pointing out the observation is not an attempt to discredit. It is an acknowledgement of actual reaction and actual reaction is information and information is what agnostics are interested in, for the purpose of trying to understand the information from the more reasonable position of the non-bias nature of Agnosticism - per the OPQ.
Reasonable people should consider any valid evidence whether they like it or not.
Precisely an aspect of the creed of Agnosticism, with the exception of 'valid' and 'like it or not' as this infers bias. Information is not filtered in that manner, by agnostics.

Reasonable people [agnostics] should consider any evidence. [ftfy]
There is no reasonable way to address your post because you continue to misrepresent agnosticism. Agnostics do not claim to know, that's all it means. Agnostic atheists are those who say that they do not definitively know that gods exist but they do not believe that they actually exist. Agnostic theists are those who say that they do not definitively know that gods exist but they do believe that they actually exist. None of that prevents any of them from considering evidence that is presented in order to re-evaluate their position. There is no creed. As far as I am concerned, giving agnosticism more meaning than it is due is just another way of trying to sneak woo in through the back door.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #298

Post by William »

[Replying to brunumb in post #297]

Your comments are a deflection from the argument being presented. If you have a problem with the labels being used, to describe actual positions folk take in relation to The Question, you appear to be the only one with the problem.

I use the word 'creed' simply to describe what underlines an overall position. The creed 'lacking belief in god(s)' is used frequently enough when atheists wish to remind folk of that position so your protest is somewhat empty of relevance.

Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists are not really agnostics. They identify with and support whichever bias they lean toward and someone who acknowledges that they lack belief in gods and also acknowledges that they do not know if gods exist, are weak atheists - a subset of Atheism.
Image
None of that prevents any of them from the Agnostic practices of considering all information that is presented, even if doing so means to re-evaluate their positions, and both can decide to abandon their positions and support Agnosticism as the most reasonable position to hold on The Question, if they so choose to.
As far as I am concerned, giving agnosticism more meaning than it is due is just another way of trying to sneak woo in through the back door.
Of course. You are an atheist and so it would be expected that you would have this suspicion. That would place you in the "Strong Atheist" subset.

I give Agnosticism no more meaning than it deserves and is honestly appropriate to give it.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3232 times
Been thanked: 1984 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #299

Post by Difflugia »

brunumb wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:10 pmAs far as I am concerned, giving agnosticism more meaning than it is due is just another way of trying to sneak woo in through the back door.
We keep having this exact convesation. "Of course, science can't be used to show that God exists. You just need to be open to the other evidence!"
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7857
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Post #300

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Elijah John wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:58 am [Replying to post 2 by Bust Nak]

Regarding the claim that atheists apply reason and logic to religion, doesn't reason dictate that there are some things that we (at least at this stage) cannot know? If that is the case, then clearly the far more reasonable position when it comes to God and religion (and more humble position as well) is that one simply does not know. I.e. agnosticism.

It seems to me that atheism is the simply the other side of the coin. The flip side to the Fundamentalist when it comes to certainty regarding God and religion. The atheist is dogmatic in his or her denial.
You are correct. But this is a fallacy called appeal to the unknown (argumentum ignorantiam, as i recall) which essentially says that the unknown or things not understood cannot be used as evidence one way or the other. These are 'gap for god' arguments where something unknown or unexplained is claimed to be 'God'.

Of course when we don't know an answer, the claim that it is 'god' has to be invalid. The position (as you correctly say) is 'agnosticism'. And agnosticism is not half - believing that a god is doing something Unknown but that nobody knows what it is. The fallacy arises for the logically skewed theist position based on a priori godfaith wherein it is assumed that a god (and usually a specific one) exists and anything unknown or unexplained has no 'scientific/materialist explanation (where a naturalist answer to what it is and how it works has ruled a god out) and can still be claimed as a god must be doing it or lurking there.

You last bit is an argument based on another fallacy - a strawman image of atheism that claims a gnostic knowledge of the non existence of God. This is not the actual position of atheism (as a logical position) which is a logical response to nobody really knowing (agnosticism' "Where you don't know, you don't believe until you do know"- see sliding scales of verification). True, atheists often do say 'there is no God', but they are rather saying they are utterly convinced on reason and evidence that the god of the Bible is not true. We really don't know for sure about some sort of god, though alternative theories to the gap for god apologetics make no god the smart hypothesis.

That is the valid logical and rational (and suitably humble :) ) position of atheism. in a rather large nutshell.

Post Reply