Topic: Need feedback on an atheism/agnosticism debate I just had.

[mmmichael]

Hello. I'm going to share with you all a conversation that I just finished(?) having with a fellow on a different message board. I would like some feedback about my handling of the situation, especially if I'm wrong. Thanks!

****

The Fellow: Agnostics are the only ones who just say “you know what, I dunno”. And me? I dunno. I have always thought that science offers a lot of conjecture and “proof” and, if you have the gall to question it, people just say “you just don’t understand it, you are ignorant”.
Also, don’t call Dawkins a self-satisfied bully, because Athiests really HATE that


Me: My problem with agnosticism is that it creates a false dichotomy, and Michael K provides a great example of how the dichotomy allows the mischaracterization of atheism.

Science thrives on being questioned. That’s how it improves. That’s how we’ve come to learn everything we know about the natural world. When a claim is presented, it’s expected to carry with it a semblance of evidence, which is to be scrutinized repeatedly until a consensus is formed.

The idea of theism is so baseless and unevidential that it can safely be discarded in the heap of things that are so wrong, they’re “not even wrong”.

Fellow: How did I mischaracterize athiesm, Michael S? It is the BELIEF that god doesn’t exist. Not the proof, not the scientifically proven theorem, the belief. Agnosticism isn’t a dichotomy, its a single fact. I Don’t Know, FACT

Me: There, you did it again. Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s the lack of belief.

The false dichotomy is this: Atheism = There’s definitely no “god”, Agnosticism = I don’t know whether or not there is a “god”.

A true atheist doesn’t claim to KNOW there is no creator. The idea of atheism is that, until there is sufficient evidence (as opposed to ZERO evidence) of a creator, there is no reason to accept one. In that way, atheists ARE agnostic.

It’s like if I were to say that when no one was looking, I levitated and flew around my room. No one could say that they KNOW that it didn’t happen, but it wouldn’t be arrogant or closed-minded to say “I won’t believe you unless you prove it”.

(note: My use of CAPS isn’t with the intention of talking like an asshat, it’s just a substitute for italics.)

Fellow: no, Athiesm is the BELIEF that there is no god. Fellow: I won’t believe you unless you prove it”
So, what were you saying?

Me: My head just fell off.

Fellow: Ok. Do you Believe that god does not exist? simple question. no sophistry, no twisting of words.

Me: Which god?

Fellow: Thats sophistry. Thats also very lame. You know full well that, as an agnostic, I am not promoting any one believe system over another, so just answer the question.

Me: You're using semantics to help your point, but I think I explained my position pretty clearly.

Me: My belief in any supernatural higher-power is equal to my belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Fellow: what?!? YOU just avoided the question. Yes, or no. Your position must be pretty shaky if you can’t answer a single simple question.

Me: I don’t believe in a god.

Fellow: Not the question, as you well know

Me: You deliberately worded your question in such a way that forces me to state that I do “believe” a negative, as you well know, and without being able to further explain (as you also requested), the statement alone wouldn’t be completely accurate. It’s a game, and I won’t play ball.

Fellow: Its not. You cannot prove a negative, therefore… you can only BELIEVE you are correct in your assumption. You say “The idea of atheism is that, until there is sufficient evidence (as opposed to ZERO evidence) of a creator, there is no reason to accept one” but thats bullshit. You choose to live your life as rigid and hidebound as any orthodox, holding your book and praying to all powerful Atheismo. You have your prophets, your idols, and you tout them like scripture. You think Christians and agnostics are less than you, because you feel superior to them. I am a great example of a false dichotomy? You are a great example of a fundie with nothing to back up your claims. I am so done with you.

Me: What idols did I tout? What about my life is rigid and highbound? What did I say that implied a Christian or an agnostic was less than me?

Furthermore, I didn’t make any claims.

[Boßel]

Do you believe in God?

Atheist says: No

Do you know if God exists?

Agnostic says: No

A true atheist doesn’t claim to KNOW there is no creator. The idea of atheism is that, until there is sufficient evidence (as opposed to ZERO evidence) of a creator, there is no reason to accept one. In that way, atheists ARE agnostic

No true scotsman fallacy. An atheist can indeed claim to "know" that there is no god. However,  I would say, the majority of atheists would never say that. If they do make that claim, they're just foregoing an agnostic stance.

This is why people can say that they're agnostic atheists. One is a stance on knowledge, and the other on belief, respectively.

no, Athiesm is the BELIEF that there is no god. Fellow: I won’t believe you unless you prove it”
So, what were you saying?

Wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief. To use Fellow's reasoning, he might as well say that lacking a hobby is itself a hobby, or that lacking hair is the same as having hair. No belief in atheism.

Atheist: "I don't believe in God." Just because the word 'believe' is in that sentence doesn't make it a belief.

Ask him. "Do you believe in God?" If he says he doesn't know, it doesn't make him an agnostic because the issue is not about knowledge it's about belief. That's where atheism and theism come in.



EDIT: Grammar and bolded words.

[mmmichael]

Thanks for the input. I've been seeing people make this characterization of atheists a lot, lately. It gets annoying.

Do you believe in God?

Atheist says: No

Do you know if God exists?

Agnostic says: No

[JuniorSpaceman]

It's meaningless to ask whether you believe in 'God', and then get pissy when you try to narrow it down. It's like asking someone whether they believe that 'Fred' ever existed, and then getting angry when they insist you explain whether you mean Fred Astaire or Fred Flintstone. Or Fred Shnooflager. For the record, I'm happy to accept the existence of the first, happy to reject the existence of the second, and agnostic about the existence of the third. True - I might be wrong about Fred Astaire being real, but there's no compelling evidence that he isn't. As for Fred Flintstone, I think it's conceivable within imagination that he was actually the subject of a documentary crew which filmed him during prehistoric times and which followed him around (along with a fake studio audience), but because there is fairly compelling evidence that he was a cartoon, I don't need to give the other theory too much weight.

Finally, as for Mr Shnooflager, I've never heard of such a person, and it sounds like an unlikely name, but there's no logical reason why he could never have existed. And then, even if I found his tombstone, how could I be sure he was the same one you were talking about?

Also, as pointed out by many people, there were groups that considered trees and volcanos as gods. I have no problem believing that these gods 'exist', but would need some sort of evidence that they fitted any other the other requirements to be considered 'gods'.

[mmmichael]

It's meaningless to ask whether you believe in 'God', and then get pissy when you try to narrow it down. It's like asking someone whether they believe that 'Fred' ever existed, and then getting angry when they insist you explain whether you mean Fred Astaire or Fred Flintstone. Or Fred Shnooflager. For the record, I'm happy to accept the existence of the first, happy to reject the existence of the second, and agnostic about the existence of the third. True - I might be wrong about Fred Astaire being real, but there's no compelling evidence that he isn't. As for Fred Flintstone, I think it's conceivable within imagination that he was actually the subject of a documentary crew which filmed him during prehistoric times and which followed him around (along with a fake studio audience), but because there is fairly compelling evidence that he was a cartoon, I don't need to give the other theory too much weight.

Finally, as for Mr Shnooflager, I've never heard of such a person, and it sounds like an unlikely name, but there's no logical reason why he could never have existed. And then, even if I found his tombstone, how could I be sure he was the same one you were talking about?

Also, as pointed out by many people, there were groups that considered trees and volcanos as gods. I have no problem believing that these gods 'exist', but would need some sort of evidence that they fitted any other the other requirements to be considered 'gods'.

Thus, The "Fred" Fallacy was formed.

[Vincegamer]

I'd be sorely tempted to ask him

ME: Do you believe in a god?

HIM: I am agnostic

ME: That's not what I asked. You just avoided the question. Yes, or no. Your position must be pretty shaky if you can’t answer a single simple question.

HIM: I don't know

ME: You don't know if you believe or not?  You go home and reflect and get back to me when you do know what's going on inside your own head.

[arthwollipot]

Fellow: Ok. Do you Believe that god does not exist? simple question. no sophistry, no twisting of words.

Me: Which god?

This was a mistake, IMO. It was irrelevant, you knew exactly what Fellow was talking about. There was no need to bring this up at all. You should have said something like "I do not believe that god does exist, which is different from believing that god doesn't exist."

[Vincegamer]

My answer to that question would most likely have been "Yes, but that's not the thing that makes me an atheist - no more than being born in the USA makes me male."

[JuniorSpaceman]

This was a mistake, IMO. It was irrelevant, you knew exactly what Fellow was talking about. There was no need to bring this up at all. You should have said something like "I do not believe that god does exist, which is different from believing that god doesn't exist."

I don't understand your objection here at all. Which god should we assume an agnostic is talking about when he asks "Do you believe in god?"

[Shibboleth]

If you know about the concept of God, provided you do not forget about the concept, you have three main mental states in which you can exist.

Accept the concept presented
Neither accept or reject the concept presented
Reject the concept

A person told of a chair in the other room can never be in the same mental state as someone who has never been told about the possibility of a chair in the other room with the exception of forgetting being told.

Because of that you do hold a mental belief about the possible status of a thing whether you want to admit it or not.

[Shibboleth]

ME: You don't know if you believe or not?  You go home and reflect and get back to me when you do know what's going on inside your own head.

I don't know if there are aliens on other planets. I think there probably are but I do not know. I am not going to say that I do not believe in aliens nor am I going to say that I do believe there are aliens. I believe there are probably aliens.

[Calinthalus]

You can also fall back on the semantical problem here.  Gnostic means to know, Theism means to believe.  Agnostic doesn't know, atheism doesn't believe.  Belief and knowledge are two different questions...thereby Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive positions to take.

Also, Dawkins scale could be useful.  If Richard Dawkins (The Pope of Atheism ®) cannot say that he KNOWS there is no God, how can any of his loyal followers?

Yes, there was a lot of sarcasm in the above sentence.  It doesn't come over well in the written word...but trust me, that sentence is only serious in thrust but not in content.

[Vincegamer]

Gnostic means to know, Theism means to believe

If you're going to state something as a definition you need to state it clearly and correctly.
Gnostic means "having knowledge" - it is an adjective.
Theism means "the belief that there is a divine being" - it is a noun.

To refer to someone as "an agnostic" is a grammatical error that may have become acceptable due to how language evolves, and it means 'one who asserts that absolute knowledge is impossible' (usually only used when discussing knowledge of God).

A problem I have with people like your Fellow is that he requires absolute knowledge to even take a position on the God concept but he does not require that standard for any other subject of belief.

[Vincegamer]

ME: You don't know if you believe or not?  You go home and reflect and get back to me when you do know what's going on inside your own head.

I don't know if there are aliens on other planets. I think there probably are but I do not know. I am not going to say that I do not believe in aliens nor am I going to say that I do believe there are aliens. I believe there are probably aliens.

so, yes or no, do you believe there are aliens on other planets? The answer cannot be "I don't know" because I didn't ask if you know there are aliens on other planets.
"Do you believe" is asking if you accept that proposition. Whether you "neither accept nor reject" or you "reject" is not material to my question. If you say neither, then the answer to my question is "no".

[arthwollipot]

This was a mistake, IMO. It was irrelevant, you knew exactly what Fellow was talking about. There was no need to bring this up at all. You should have said something like "I do not believe that god does exist, which is different from believing that god doesn't exist."

I don't understand your objection here at all. Which god should we assume an agnostic is talking about when he asks "Do you believe in god?"

Seriously? What culture are you a part of? Is there no default religion where you are?