Agnostic Atheists

[Kfox]

Yes.
If you accept their claim and share their belief.

So how can you claim to have knowledge God exists or not unless you know which God you are talking about? Would an atheist go back and forth from gnostic atheist to agnostic atheist depending on the God in question?

“just an idea in their head.”
In other words “is imagined and doesn’t comport with reality”……correct?

Yes;
They specify their interpretation of what God is…
now you understand their belief….
now you make a determination as to whether you accept it and share that belief.

Correct

This is a very sloppy sentence which lends itself to misinterpretation…..
I presume you mean;
“I understand what he calls God as an illusion he has in his head.”
And that that illusion doesn’t comport with reality, and is therefore unfounded, yes?

Yes.

Whether they are called God isn’t the point.

Do you accept/believe those things that are called God to actually comport in reality in the same way as the person that calls them God imagines them in there head?

No, I see them as false claims concerning sometimes real, sometimes imagined things.

You apparently haven’t been paying attention.

I am an agnostic atheist.
(Which I suspect you are as well, based on what I glean from what I think it is you are saying)
I don’t have a belief in any gods.

I consider what claims I’m presented with on the terms (the ideas) of the claim/s presented.
I evaluate them, to determine if there is any rational justifiable reason to believe them to be true.
To date, I haven’t come across any that qualify.

It is one of the reasons I don’t accept the concept of gods……
because there are so many incongruent, conflicting, contradictory and illogical assertions of what a god is, it seems to me that they all become extremely implausible.

According to the chart, an agnostic atheist does not claim to know that no Gods exist. Does this mean as an agnostic atheist you leave open the possibility of existence concerning any God claim someone makes; no matter how absurd?

 

[endlessvoid2018]

That would probably be the agnostic part. Believing and knowing are two different things, are they not?

I could say, "I believe there are no gods that exist, but I don't know that for sure. I could be wrong."

 

[Dao Hao Now]

So how can you claim to have knowledge God exists or not unless you know which God you are talking about? Would an atheist go back and forth from gnostic atheist to agnostic atheist depending on the God in question?

Exactly

According to the chart, an agnostic atheist does not claim to know that no Gods exist. Does this mean as an agnostic atheist you leave open the possibility of existence concerning any God claim someone makes; no matter how absurd?

Pretty much.
It means I can’t honestly know that there are no gods since you can’t prove a negative, (See Black Swan fallacy) so I remain open to the possibility.

As far as “how absurd”…..
The more absurd; the easier it is to discount as not viable.
If it’s one of the many, many I’ve heard before and have already determined to be false,
I can pretty much dismiss it off hand. ……
Unless someone can add new information I was previously unaware of. (this doesn’t happen often)

I go to great lengths to avoid cognitive bias and fallacies on my part, which tends to make them easy to spot in others.

The chart is designed for the claim in general, but can be applied on a case by case basis as well.

To be on the theist side of the chart one can dismiss a multitude of other gods so long as they accept at least one.
To be on the atheist side of the chart one dismisses the gods the theist dismisses in addition to the one/s the theist accepts.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

One thing that always makes me question things.... How can someone actually say for a FACT that they KNOW a God exists, or doesn't? I can see it more from an atheist perspective, as obviously there isn't any literal evidence to show that one does exist, so atheists will always have the more logical, upper hand in this sense. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

But also when someone is a believer, and like on the charts on here, states "I KNOW God exists." My FIL told me that he KNOWS everything in the Bible is true. How do you know? Did God come down from the clouds and tell you he's real and the Bible is true? This has never made sense to me.

 

[Kfox]

That would probably be the agnostic part. Believing and knowing are two different things, are they not?

True

I could say, "I believe there are no gods that exist, but I don't know that for sure. I could be wrong."

I don't know if I can agree with that; just as you can't be "A" and not "A" at the same time, if something (for example) is defined as "all good", but is constantly doing bad things, it can't be ALL good! Agree?

 

[Kfox]

Pretty much.
It means I can’t honestly know that there are no gods since you can’t prove a negative, (See Black Swan fallacy) so I remain open to the possibility.

Just because you can’t prove something is not true does not mean you have to be open to it’s possibility no matter how absurd. I cannot prove the Earth is not flat; that does not mean I have to be open to the possibility that it is.

 

[Kfox]

One thing that always makes me question things.... How can someone actually say for a FACT that they KNOW a God exists, or doesn't? I can see it more from an atheist perspective, as obviously there isn't any literal evidence to show that one does exist, so atheists will always have the more logical, upper hand in this sense. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

But also when someone is a believer, and like on the charts on here, states "I KNOW God exists." My FIL told me that he KNOWS everything in the Bible is true. How do you know? Did God come down from the clouds and tell you he's real and the Bible is true? This has never made sense to me.

When people say they know this or that, they're not saying they can prove it, they are just saying they are 100% certain.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Just because you can’t prove something is not true does not mean you have to be open to it’s possibility no matter how absurd.

As I said….

As far as “how absurd”…..
The more absurd; the easier it is to discount as not viable.
If it’s one of the many, many I’ve heard before and have already determined to be false,
I can pretty much dismiss it off hand. ……

When I say “I am open to the possibility”…..
I mean that in the general sense, as in answer to the question; “Do you believe in the existence of any god/s?”

In specific instances where a particular definition or depiction of a particular god is brought up…
if it is absurd, then I dismiss it as absurd and am not open to it’s possibility.
However, I remain open to the possibility of other god/s that I may have never heard of and therefore cannot dismiss the possibility of it in the general sense.

I cannot prove the Earth is not flat; that does not mean I have to be open to the possibility that it is.

Then I assume you have accepted the consensus opinion based on provable facts without first hand knowledge of the methods used?
I can prove the Earth is not flat, due to first hand knowledge of the methods used.

The question of whether a god exists (an unknown entity) is different from a question of the shape of the Earth (a known entity).
The Earth is known to exist and can be measured, observed and tested.

God/s are not known to exist and can’t be measured, observed. Some claims of them can be tested….. of which to my knowledge all so far have failed.
So with gods, it’s more like asking which china pattern is on Russell’s teapot ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot?wprov=sfti1) rather than what shape is the Earth.

 

[Kfox]

Then I assume you have accepted the consensus opinion based on provable facts without first hand knowledge of the methods used?

No; I’ve been on ships, I’ve been on planes; I’ve seen the curvature of the Earth. I just don’t have access to a ship or plane in order to proove to someone that the Earth is not flat.

The question of whether a god exists (an unknown entity) is different from a question of the shape of the Earth (a known entity).

To some; God is a known entity

The Earth is known to exist and can be measured, observed and tested.

Some will say the same can be said for God

God/s are not known to exist and can’t be measured, observed. Some claims of them can be tested….. of which to my knowledge all so far have failed.

Some will say the claims of a round earth has been tested and to their knowledge have failed.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

To some; God is a known entity

To the “some” God is believed to be a “known”
entity, yet nobody has ever been able to actually demonstrate that to be true.

Some will say the same can be said for God

If God were known to exist and could be measured, observed and tested…..
there would be valid measurements, confirmed observations and verified test results;
and yet there are none.
So again, what “some say” often isn’t correct and the fact it was uttered has no bearing on that correctness.

Some will say the claims of a round earth has been tested and to their knowledge have failed.

Yet they agree that the Earth exists.
And, since the tests are demonstrable, they can easily expand their knowledge base to include the verifiable facts, as you have demonstrated to yourself having personally seen the curvature.
While you may not have personal access to a ship or plane doesn’t mean it can’t be proven….
Anyone can get access to a ship or plane, the fact that you don’t have the immediate means to give them access doesn’t prevent it from being proven. There are also many other means to prove that it isn’t flat that have been known since the ancient greeks.
( see: Eratosthenes - Wikipedia)

The problem with the question of whether or not a god/s exist is that it is often an unfalsifiable claim, which is why I can’t honestly rule out the possibility (and thus my agnostic designation).

The question of whether or not the Earth is flat
is falsifiable (and has been falsified) so anyone that honestly investigates it without cognitive bias will inevitably arrive at the conclusion of it being spheroid.


So what “some” people believe, claim, say about, and call things doesn’t make what they
believe, claim, say about, and call things accurate.
A reasonable competent person will validate what is believed, claimed, said about, and called, in order to determine if it comports with what has verifiably confirmed to be objectively factual.

 

[Kfox]

To the “some” God is believed to be a “known”
entity, yet nobody has ever been able to actually demonstrate that to be true.

If God were known to exist and could be measured, observed and tested…..
there would be valid measurements, confirmed observations and verified test results;
and yet there are none.
So again, what “some say” often isn’t correct and the fact it was uttered has no bearing on that correctness.

Yet they agree that the Earth exists.
And, since the tests are demonstrable, they can easily expand their knowledge base to include the verifiable facts, as you have demonstrated to yourself having personally seen the curvature.
While you may not have personal access to a ship or plane doesn’t mean it can’t be proven….
Anyone can get access to a ship or plane, the fact that you don’t have the immediate means to give them access doesn’t prevent it from being proven. There are also many other means to prove that it isn’t flat that have been known since the ancient greeks.
( see: Eratosthenes - Wikipedia)

The problem with the question of whether or not a god/s exist is that it is often an unfalsifiable claim, which is why I can’t honestly rule out the possibility (and thus my agnostic designation).

The question of whether or not the Earth is flat
is falsifiable (and has been falsified) so anyone that honestly investigates it without cognitive bias will inevitably arrive at the conclusion of it being spheroid.


So what “some” people believe, claim, say about, and call things doesn’t make what they
believe, claim, say about, and call things accurate.
A reasonable competent person will validate what is believed, claimed, said about, and called, in order to determine if it comports with what has verifiably confirmed to be objectively factual.

My point is, just because I know does not mean I have to be able to demonstrate as true. You can know; yet still be wrong. I know my name, age, birthdate, and who my birth parents are. But if some information came out proving I was actually adopted at birth, and the people I know to be my birth parents were actually my adopted parents who kept this information from me, and the fake birthday, birth name, and age were all a part of the conspiracy, I would be wrong, even though I was 100% certain I was not. However, until such information comes to surface, I will continue to say I know my name, age, birthday, and who my birth parents are; without leaving anything open to the possibility that I could be wrong.

 

[Orbit]

I am curious to who out there is an Agnostic Atheist? Obviously, the term Agnostic isn't really mutually exclusive.
I certainly have seen a lot more people who claim to be an Agnostic Atheist, as opposed to an Agnostic Theist.
I have had a whole slew of different thoughts since my deconstruction from Christianity around three months ago.
My first landing on Agnostic, then Deism, then Agnostic Theist, next was a bit of Pantheism/Pandeism, now
I'm basically back to being Agnostic again. However, I sort of feel ever since then, that I am really starting to believe
that there possibly isn't any god or gods. But obviously, I cannot know that for sure as I cannot prove anything.
I don't believe in the God of Abrahamic faiths at all. But I am having a hard time getting past the concept of there not
being any kind of god or higher power at all, whether in the non religious sense or other.
Possibly due to my indoctrination at a young age? I was baptized in the Catholic church as an infant,
and went to church at a young age. So basically it was engraved into me the belief that God exists.
I have found the most peace recently though however falling on Agnostic beliefs, and basically living my life
non-religious. Essentially neutral. I still have some kind of lingering notions however that something may exist
beyond this life, even if it's not a god or a deity. Perhaps I am spiritual and not religious?
Several people have told me my beliefs sound like I am in fact an Agnostic Atheist. Others have said that the
best stance I can take is being what I have been, an agnostic that doesn't practice religion.
Another person I spoke to said I can hold Atheist beliefs without identifying as an Atheist.
And for anyone who has gone from being a Christian to Atheist or Agnostic Atheist, how
long did it take for you to accept the fact that there may not be a god or that you no longer believed there was?

Any thoughts?

I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t think we can know whether or not there is a God, so maybe I’m an ignostic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No. That would be "strong" atheism. Plain atheism; atheism per se, is simply a lack of belief.

ttps://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheismAtheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

I'd prefer not to use "lacking a belief in gods" as if there is something missing.

I find "one without gods" a better description and much more straightforward and to the point.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t think we can know whether or not there is a God, so maybe I’m an ignostic.

I'd be agnostic if I felt there was any actual possibility that can be pointed out.

Since there is none, I find it's easy to discard the agnostic notion because I don't see anything that is recognizable and established as being supernatural or paranormal.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

My point is, just because I know does not mean I have to be able to demonstrate as true. You can know; yet still be wrong. I know my name, age, birthdate, and who my birth parents are. But if some information came out proving I was actually adopted at birth, and the people I know to be my birth parents were actually my adopted parents who kept this information from me, and the fake birthday, birth name, and age were all a part of the conspiracy, I would be wrong, even though I was 100% certain I was not. However, until such information comes to surface, I will continue to say I know my name, age, birthday, and who my birth parents are; without leaving anything open to the possibility that I could be wrong.

Yes
And that is why the agnostic label in my opinion.
While I am conditionally “certain” of things, I can’t claim to have “knowledge” of anything that I can’t in fact prove.
That conditional certainty is open to revision if any of conditions (available verifiable information)
change.

 

[Valjean]

I'd prefer not to use "lacking a belief in gods" as if there is something missing.

I find "one without gods" a better description and much more straightforward and to the point.

"One without gods" seems a bit ambiguous. It could mean unaccompanied by any gods, unafiliated with a church or religion, unaware of god, having belief in gods but not availing oneself of them, rejected by one's gods, &c.
Lack of belief seems a much more concise description of the cognitive state of atheism.

 

[Heyo]

My point is, just because I know does not mean I have to be able to demonstrate as true. You can know; yet still be wrong. I know my name, age, birthdate, and who my birth parents are. But if some information came out proving I was actually adopted at birth, and the people I know to be my birth parents were actually my adopted parents who kept this information from me, and the fake birthday, birth name, and age were all a part of the conspiracy, I would be wrong, even though I was 100% certain I was not. However, until such information comes to surface, I will continue to say I know my name, age, birthday, and who my birth parents are; without leaving anything open to the possibility that I could be wrong.

If you can't show it, you don't know it.
You picked a bad example because the belief in your name, birthday and parents is justified and you could demonstrate it by showing your birth certificate.

 

[Kfox]

Yes
And that is why the agnostic label in my opinion.
While I am conditionally “certain” of things, I can’t claim to have “knowledge” of anything that I can’t in fact prove.
That conditional certainty is open to revision if any of conditions (available verifiable information)
change.

I think the difference between the two of us is you define knowledge as something that can be proven as fact, where as I see knowledge as something you 100% believe without any doubt. I think going by your discription, it is difficult to know anything because a scenario can be presented that can put nearly anything into question. Also going by your definition, theists are actually agnostic theists because they can't factually prove the claims they make about what they call God, their belief is based on faith.

 

[Kfox]

If you can't show it, you don't know it.
You picked a bad example because the belief in your name, birthday and parents is justified and you could demonstrate it by showing your birth certificate.

No; in my scenario, the fake birth certificate, name, records, and everything else was all part of the conspiracy to keep this information from me.

 

[Heyo]

No; in my scenario, the fake birth certificate, name, records, and everything else was all part of the conspiracy to keep this information from me.

Oh, yes, and now you'll tell me that you have uncovered a grand conspiracy you know is true but you can't prove it as the conspirators have destroyed all the evidence.
(Please don't do that because I'd have to report you. I can't show you for obvious reasons but I'm working for the conspirators who faked your birth certificate.)