I've heard a bunch of quite well-known scientists and other famous people (e.g. Niel deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye) who have claimed that scientists, to be true to themselves, "must" be agnostic, not atheist. Their defense of this is that since there is no evidence, a decision can't be made one way or the other on the existence of any mythical beings.
Isn't this kind of claim not entirely valid, though? Does there have to be positive evidence either supporting or contradicting something to make a claim about it, or can a staggering (significant...) lack of any evidence -- when evidence would essentially be expected -- defend a similar claim from a negative aspect as well?
It seems to me that saying "there is no specific evidence, therefore: agnostic" is being dishonest to oneself. This brings up arguments like Bertrand's Teapot, IPU, FSM, or even a "square circle". While there isn't any universe-encompassing body of evidence that rules such things out, the complete lack of any evidence of any sort is really just a different kind of evidence, isn't it?
Do you have any unique perspectives, particular experiences, or tidbits to offer to help solve this fluke of reasoning?
Just how impossible must something be for people not to believe it?
I've always felt that "agnostic" is a meaningless label. Sure, it has practical use in day-to-day interactions as a synonym for "not religious", but to really try to defend it as a serious philosophical position is just pedantic. Clearly, most educated, intelligent people will freely admit that we cannot prove (have knowledge) that God exists. Therefore, we are all technically agnostic. If everyone is agnostic, it's kind of pointless to call yourself that as though it were some unique category.
The only relevant position is one's belief. Some believe, others do not. When it comes to belief, there's no in-between. If you're undecided, then you don't believe yet and are an atheist. If you don't have enough information, then you don't believe yet and are an atheist. I would not call such people atheists in everyday conversation, but if we're talking technicalities, that's what they are.
It's not either/or. You can be atheist based on the lack of evidence but remain open (agnostic) to some proof that you can't even imagine at the moment. To say something doesn't exist is very hard to prove. If you can't prove something, it's very hard to defend. Do you strong atheists have an actual proof of God's nonexistence?
Has the idea or the word god been coherently defined to even start the debate?
Everyone has there own interpretation on the meaning of agnosticism. The part about it being unknown and possibly unknowable is what I find interesting. To my line of thought if a being actually possessed the qualities humans attributed to most gods then the jury would certainly not still be out. This entity could easily remove all doubt and suspicion once and for all. The onus is certainly on the god believer to substantiate their claim as it is not the responsibility of the atheist to prove a negative. To me it boils down to likelihood and with the increasing amount of scientific data that continues to explain in a verifiable way the nature of our universe the argument for god(s) becomes increasingly tenuous.
I believe the Atheists stance is that when someone offers proof of the existence of a god, then I will believe in the god, but until then I won't. Is this accurate?
To me, this is totally different than Agnosticism, but most religious people can't understand the differences. Shoot, most of the religious people I know are certain that Atheism is a religion and requires faith.
So I don't confuse the simple-minded, I just call myself an Atheist and let them decide for themselves what that means.
Yes it's important to make a distinction between "I don't know" (which some people call "agnosticism") and "It is impossible to know" (which is what others seem to think the word necessarily means).
I believe all of us Atheists are agnostics as we don't cannot disprove the existence of mythical deities with 100% probability. We can go up to 99.9% but that 0.1% will still remain. That is just how mathematics works. There is no really "100% probability.
So at one point we can say "it is impossible to know if god doesn't exist with complete assurance but with high probability you can say god doesn't exist"
I believe Dawkins once said that Agnostics are just Atheists without "balls" lol.
I'd say it depends on the mythic deity, Adam.
If someone were to claim to worship the god Dahgipabv, who is both red and green at the same time, then I'd say that god absolutely does not exist, because he/she/it is a contradiction in terms.
I'd maintain that any "infinite" god is a contradiction in terms. Now Thor, on the other hand....
I've heard this sentiment expressed in real life, and the source of irritation with atheists is the church state separation activism some of us engage in.
I read recently somewhere that 90 percent of the population wants to (for example) leave "In God We Trust" on the coins and paper money. If so that means even almost half of the "nones" side with them, and unfortunately I find that all too plausible as I believe many "nones" are not in fact our allies but just people who consider themselves non-religious because they don't go to church, even though they do believe in doG. (An annoying misuse of the word "religious" but there it is.)
If it truly does have 90 percent support we won't be getting rid of it any time soon.
Agnostic is not a position of faith or non faith or even in between. It says nothing about faith. It is about knowledge. We are all agnostics. I happen to be an agnostic-atheist