An agnostic wants an answer from an atheist.?

Question

I am sure that this has been brought up before, anyways.

So many atheists will say that it is impossible to prove a negative. So isn't hypocritical to say that you 100% do not believe in God?

And yes, I realize that I cannot disprove the existence of pink elephants controlling the universe. And no, I'm not making a case for theism here, just for agnosticism.

Why not be honest and follow your logic to it's conclusion, you do not know.

This is to Equinox, not necessarily directed at you but what you said.

Those atheists that debate theists over issues of evidence in their beliefs are just as ignorant in their beliefs if they "just dont believe" just like the theists "just believe".

It is hypocrisy to demand evidence of one side without giving evidence of yours. There is no definitive proof that God doesn't exist.

And for the one that said "I don't want proof", you really are no better than the fundy theists.

D-girl, prove that before the actual day and then I'll believe that that was a valid example.

As to the whole "different standard", Your point is well taken, but because this is a supernatural topic, then I do demand an assurance for this. I guess it comes down to a personal decision. But if that is true then theists can say that they made the decision of not scrutinizing this issues just like you do with atheism.

To the teapot example. That there is a reason why I like Russell so much.

It may be unreasonable to claim ignorance for the teapot but that does not speak to the validity of the claim as to whether there actually is a teapot.

I appreciate all the great answers. In response to all of them, I can break it down to this. I agree with all of you about the lack of evidence and how it is unreasonable to think that infinitesimally small probabilities might be true. Note, unreasonable, but not proven. That is what I want, undeniable proof either way, which is unfortunately probably impossible.

Like I said I agree with you guys which is why I mostly put down Atheist/Agnostic on my posts when needed. Look it up.

To Jat on his last part...

If the question is whether a God exists then would you or would you not demand more evidence from a theist on this than say just asking whether Bob locked his house last night? Of course you would. I guess this comes down to whether materialism is more sane than theism. I view both as unproven assumptions. As a science major, I of course take the materialist assumption but I acknowledge it for what it is, an assumption used to further knowledge and not use "God of gaps".

Answer 1

You may not be making a case for theism, but you did make a case for universe-controlling pink elephants. It's not that your argument defeats itself, it's just that posed that way, it implies the logical necessity to be generally agnostic, under all circumstances.

In other words, just because you think those elephants are silly doesn't exempt you from answering your own question about them. Why not be honest and follow your logic to its conclusion, the universe may indeed be ruled by pink pachyderms, you do not know. And that's where this gets "psychological."

You, and many others, hold the concept of the "unproveable God" in higher esteem than other equally "unproveable" propositions (yes, including MANY gods or elephants.). But you have nothing to bolster that claim of "higher" importance except your cultural background. My Buddhist friends see no conceptual difference at all between gods, fairies and unicorns - all of them are chimerical, fantasy.

In a perfectly trivial sense you ARE correct. I DON'T know if there is an invisible unicorn in the other room, or one god, or many gods. But they ALL belong to the same category, and that category would contain infinite constructs. So it boils down to this. Are you proposing an intellectual approach in which any absurdity that cannot be disproven "not to exist" be given serious consideration? As state by you question, that is the essence of your logic. And no, your worrying about "god" doesn't in itself make it any different from the other illusions.
UPDATE:
I'm sorry, but I think a lot of people are missing the point. The question you have to ask yourself is: Why are you insisting in holding this concept to a standard you do NOT hold any other? In other words, I doubt you're going to require that I prove to you "100% one way or the other" whether Joob-joob The Tree Spirit exists. It isn't a question of "minute possibilities." It's a question of intellectual rigor in approaching reality. That rigor is eroded by the cultural notions which compel you to elevate "God" over Joob-joob and the lovely elephants.

Answer 2

The argument is not "You can not prove a negative, so God 100% does not exists.

HOWEVER, if a God exists, we see no adequate evidence to point to his existence, and as such feel theism is silly and rather antiquated. As you said yourself, you cannot prove pink elephants exist, so there is no reason to believe that pink elephants DO exist. When I see evidence pointing towards pink elephants, then it would be reasonable to have doubt in the previous assumption.

If you go around with the mentality that things that cannot be proven 100% false should not be taken as fact, then we would be in serious trouble. I drink water from water fountains because I have no evidence to believe the water is poisoned, but I cannot be 100% sure the water is not poisoned. However, I drink from it anyway BECAUSE I see no evidence.

Sure, there might be a god or deity. But there is no evidence to support that claim, and holding the belief that this is a feasible possibility when there is no evidence paints the universe in a skeptical light. How could you believe the negative of ANYTHING (ie a falling ball will not stop three feet from the ground) without the ability to prove it 100% false?

You hold many things as 100% false because there is no evidence otherwise, but for some reason, maybe residual brainwashing or something, you feel incapable of doing this with the concept of "God."

Asking an atheist to prove God doesn't exist 100%, as stated hundreds of times, is a logical fallacy- no- a logical _impossibility_. You sound like a smart person, but I'm sure you're not agnostic towards pink elephants leprechauns. If you've come this far from religion then just roll back down the hill to atheism where you'll find things make a lot more sense.

Answer 3

I am a former agnostic who used to think like you. But then I realized it was silly to allow the 0.0000000001% chance that God or gods exist to define me.

I would use the famous Bertrand Russell analogy: We can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter, so we must, by definition be "orbiting teapot agnostics" - but in reality, no reasonable person would seriously entertain orbiting teapot theology without a shred of evidence to support such a silly claim. So, actually everyone is - for all in intents and purposes an "orbiting teapot atheist"

Likewise, the notion of a supreme controlling being, especially the patently absurd Judea-Christian version, is so unlikely as to be not worthy of serious discussion.

Answer 4

Atheism means not having a theism. They dont 100% disbelieve in a god. The simple fact is that there being a god could happen, it has the same likelyhood as the flying spaghetti monster. It is so much more likely that there isnt a god than there is ( a fact you cant deny) that being weak atheist is the most logical way to be. Strong atheism (the 100% type you describe) is almost as silly as organised theism.

Answer 5

If I say that I don't believe a taxi will drop through the roof of my house, am I being hypocritical? No, I'm just stating an opinion.

And however much of an infinitely small possibility there is that I am wrong, my opinion is that I DO know.

On the same basis, if my opinion were that I don't believe in the existence of God then why shouldn't I call myself atheist?

I've followed my logic to it's conclusion, but I don't appear to have reached the same one as you I'm afraid.
.

Answer 6

I accept your agnosticism, but until there is definitive proof, with scientific confirmation, of the existence of a god or gods, I'll stay an atheist. That's not hypocrisy, because I never claim to believe anything else. I have no supernatural beliefs at all.

Answer 7

because, as you lay out the case, knowledge isn't possible - only uncertainty.
Is it only deities for which you reserve any judgment?
If so, why?
By your parameters, there are lots of things that you can't be sure of, including the pink elephants you mentioned.
No, in any other circumstance, you would agree with atheists. For some reason, you hold a different standard when it comes to god(s).

Answer 8

I don't want proof because there is none. Simple isn't it?

And I can prove a negative. Ex. I'm not going to wear a red dress to the dance tomorrow. You can come over and watch me wear my blue dress and be with me the whole time until I come back home and change.

Answer 9

Are you agnostic about flying pigs too?
Or are you really absolutely 100% not beleiving in them?

If you are not agnostic about them and you are sure that you do not have a positive belief in them. That's exacly the same way many atheists treat the god, that you're not sure if you beleive in or not.

Answer 10

its not proving a negative.

Hypothesis: There is a god.

Existing Proof/Evidence: none (or at best, man's ignorance.)

Proposed experiments to test hypothesis: none.

Results: n/a

Conclusion: There is not a god.

Discussion: Have a SUPER DUPER Special day!!