kwigibo

the best way to counter this argument is to ask the person why they are not agnostic then. It is really a very weak argument, as the person arguing it is usually more guilty than the victim in terms of claiming absolute knowledge

BTW, good to see another australian on the board (watch out for AspenMama though )

Beelzebub

You can argue right back. Many theists claim that God is unknowable. How can you say that something is unknowable unless you already know everything?

Secular Elation

Anunnaki,

The Christains have no choice but to distort and belittle everything that disagrees with them as they have no other straws left to grasp at. Their views of atheism and all other things that go against their agenda should go in one ear and out the other just like the truth does with them.

Precisely! Have you read Tim LaHaye's and David C. Noeble's book Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium? It's from the co-author of the Left Behind series and he attacks humanism, atheism, evolution, etc., but they claim that atheism is a "belief" that no gods exist and "since these people don't have God as the reason for existence, they have to turn to something, don't they? So they made up evolution" and other superfluous strawmen. It irks me!

IvanK

The argument in the OP makes the case for agnosticism, not religious belief. As limited beings we can't know with any degree of certainty that no being having the qualities attributed to any of the gods in any of the world's religions past or present never existed, doesn't exist now and won't ever exist in any part of the vast cosmos. That being said, there doesn't seem to be a lot of convincing evidence for same. So those of us who choose to rely primarily on the evidence of our senses and reason are justified in calling ourselves atheists, at least until some better evidence presents itself.

We begin with doubt, but we don't end there. We don't have to be sure; just reasonably certain.

FoE

So are agnostics also atheists then?

IvanK

I'd have to say that anyone not professing a positive belief in the existence of a god or gods would qualify as an atheist. Others might disagree. In my experience what one calls oneself depends largely on social circumstances and can vary accordingly. A surprisingly large number of the Members of the U.S. Congress call themselves Unitarian, for example.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

Jobar

Sanshaj, the agnostic/weak atheist/strong atheist distinctions are not really being hotly debated at present (that I have noticed anyway) but we have had such debates 'round here. My own take on it- an agnostic says that no certain knowledge concerning the existence/nonexistence of any sort of a supreme being is possible for non-supreme humans. A weak atheist says that since there is no least shred of evidence for a God, disbelief is the default position. And a strong atheist says that since the definitions presented for 'God' are all self-contradictory, a positive belief in the non-existence of God is justifiable.

An interesting way around this problem, and something that may aid you in your argument- the philosopher Paul Kurtz coined the word 'igtheism' ('ig' from 'ignorance') to express the position that 'God is unintelligible'- the word is simply meaningless. If you insist that those speaking of it define it, all these definitions have glaring defects. We don't understand what they are talking about- and neither do they!

This is an interesting topic, but it is more appropriate to Misc. Religious Discussions, I think.

IvanK

Well that oughta catch on just like "eupraxophy" did.

CardinalMan

Everybody forms beliefs on topics despite the fact that they have incomplete knowledge. This is absolutely essential. Outside of the most trivial of circumstances, it is simply impossible to investigate every relevant fact before drawing a conclusion. We are forced to proceed based upon incomplete evidence.

Anybody that makes the claim "You don't know everything so you can't be an atheist" is in a tight spot. They certainly can't believe any finding of science because we haven't performed every possible experiment at every possible time in history at every possible temperature in every possible part of the universe. They couldn't deny the existence of Zeus, Thor, Aphrodite, dragons, etc. as Monkeybot referred to above. I don't know how such a person could justify an opinion on any political matter since they certainly do not know every possible relevant fact that would be necessary to state their belief. Also, they certainly could never convict a criminal because they were not able to witness the crime from every possible viewpoint.

If we are left only with facts, and not allowed to infer conclusions based on an incomplete list of facts, then life would be horribly boring. Scientists would compile mountains of data without being able to step back and syntesize it into an all-encomapassing theory. Non-fiction books with be pages and pages of numbers without drawing any conclusions.

Thus, we are left with a situation in which we have to make informed and educted decisions with imperfect information. Of course, we will never be 100% sure of any of our conclusions, but this should not discourage us. As we learn more, our beliefs should evolve and our confidence in them should increase.

Personally, I'm an atheist because, in my mind, the evidence for a god seems incredibly weak, and every god that I've ever read about seems to be incompatible with the world as I see it. I'm not 100% sure of course, but I feel pretty confident, and I think that I can defend my position with some (but certainly not all) facts. That's all that anybody can reasonably expect.

CardinalMan

Eudaimonist

You can turn that bullying argument around on them. If omniscience is a requirement for non-belief, it's a requirement for belief as well. After all, even if they think they have good arguments and evidence for the existence of God, they might not know of all contrary evidence and arguments. So are there no theists either? Are we all doomed to agnosticism?

Of course not. Certainty and belief are two different issues. We don't require absolute certainty in order to have beliefs or to lack them. I don't need to be omniscient in order to lack belief in Zeus, and neither do Christians. Same goes for Yahweh.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>