How would Atheists respond to these quotes from Atheist Kai Nielsen?

Question

"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

"In the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Nielsen

Jedi, I just gave Wikipedia so those who don't know him could get a few brute facts on the man, the quotes come from his book, "Reason and Practice".

Answer 1

First quote sounds correct. Arguments shown invalid are invalid because the Truth preservation of claims has been shown to be lost at a point.

The conclusion cannot be said to be 100% correct, but at the same time with Deductive arguments, it cannot be said to be 90% or even 60%. Deductive focus on proof, so the relative possibilities are ignored and thus to make a probability claim, one must use an Inductive argument.

As for the second quote: This seems to be based on a rather fallacious terminology of Atheism and Agnosticism.

Most Atheists define Atheism as being the lack of belief in the existence of gods.

In other words, those who don't believe that gods exist are Atheists and those who do not make any logical claims on the existence of gods are also Atheists as well.

They separate Agnosticism into a separate question on whether or not it is possible to find evidence of the existence of gods.

I don't really use this method, but my system is very similar.

I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Answer 2

First of all any atheist that changes their beliefs because another atheist thinks something is being just as much of a mindless sheep as they claim the Christians are being.

Secondly, the quote is true, although I think the argument to remain neutral has no real benefit one way or the other. So my question is, what are you afraid of either way? If you truly believed that the existence of God was null, then you wouldn't even stop to consider writing an argument for, against, or neutral to it. Obviously Kai Nielsen has thoughts about God, so he can't say he has thoughts about something non-existent. Nothing is nothing, I can't have thoughts about nothing, I can have thoughts correlating to nothing, as in, the world exists, and so nothing exists as an imaginary concept correlating to this, but as for thinking about nothing, or a being that doesn't exist, is absurd. So I'd say that Mr. Nielsen does have thoughts about God, and so by saying that he is neutral is fine, but he can't deny that he thinks about God, which would imply to any person with a rational mind that he brings up the idea in thought, regardless of whether he believes in it or not. So my argument is, regardless of whether or not God exists, one can always bring the concept to mind.

Answer 3

I would say that is his opinion which he is certainly entitled to. Unlike Xians, atheists don't fight each other over every little disagreement. We respect one another.

His premise is illogical though. Being a professor does not make you perfect. Take anything anyone ever says about god and just replace it with another fantasy creature, like a leprechaun. Will it still make sense? Let's see.....

"All the proofs of a leprechaun's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that leprechauns exist."

So are Xians willing to be agnostic on the existence of leprechauns? Doubt it.

Answer 4

Agnosticism also believe that its impossible to know if there is a god. Atheism isn't about impossibles if god is proven then there won't be a problem in acknowledging it.

Answer 5

There is no such thing as agnosticism.

There are only atheists in denial.

Even the most fundie atheist would become a theist if proof of the existence of deities were to arise.

Saying you're agnostic is just arguing semantics.


Ah.. that first sentence is scary. I sound like a fundie theist.

Answer 6

to provide as a lot as lack of information and make contact with it God has always been untimely, and it continues to be untimely at present. - Isaac Asimov If I were no longer an atheist, i'd be counted on a God who may pick to save human beings on the muse of the totality of their lives and not in any respect the progression of their words. i imagine he may want an honest and righteous atheist to a television preacher whose each note is God, God, God, and whose each deed is foul, foul, foul. – Isaac Asimov with or without faith, you may have sturdy human beings doing sturdy issues and evil human beings doing evil issues. yet for sturdy human beings to do evil issues, that takes faith. – Steven Weinberg In Christianity neither morality nor faith come into contact with actuality at any aspect. – Friedrich Nietzsche provide a guy a fish and he will devour for an afternoon; coach a guy to fish and he will devour for a lifetime; provide a guy faith and he will die praying for a fish. – nameless and my maximum popular Is God keen to lead away from evil, yet no longer able? Then he's not all-powerful. Is he able, yet no longer keen? Then he's malevolent. Is he both able and keen? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor keen? Then why call him God? – Epicuru

Answer 7

Well considering no one wants to answer it, rather insult.

I would agree. Atheism is not believing in God, so there would have to be a god for them to not believe in.

Agnostic's say "hey I am not sure, I don't know" they are the only true ones, but they haven't said "there is no god" since technically that hasn't been proven or disproven.

Answer 8

In the view of physical science, every observable phenomenon can be explained on the bases of the known laws of nature or laws yet to be discovered. If there is a phenomenon that we cannot understand or explain with our present state of knowledge, then we have to await future discoveries and developments. The fact that we do not understand an event or a phenomenon should drive us to seek an understanding of it. There are no mysteries in science; everything has a scientific explanation.

Answer 9

I don't worry about "justification" too much... I'm too worried about fixing my own deluded mind... as such a thing is discussed in Buddhism, not via the perceptions of those who choose to disagree with a pov.

_()_

Answer 10

Ask an English teacher to check your bibliography.

Wikipedia is not a credible site.