Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[McBell]

Nope, that's exactly what the original gumball and box arguments do, they purposely conflate atheism with uncertainty, in other words they pretend atheism is what we call agnosticism, and that agnosticism is not a third position of great importance. All this just to avoid supporting a position, it's quite embarrassing.

The answer "I do not know" means nothing more than "I do not know".
The only way your "argument" works is to not only humpty dumpty the definitions of atheism and agnosticism, but to make "I do not know" mean something more than "I do not know".

You are trying to play a word game you are not very good at.

 

[Falvlun]

The answer "I do not know" means nothing more than "I do not know".
The only way your "argument" works is to not only humpty dumpty the definitions of atheism and agnosticism, but to make "I do not know" mean something more than "I do not know".

You are trying to play a word game you are not very good at.

I think perhaps the confusion is that many atheists do mean more than "I don't know". They often also tack on "but the existence of gods is extremely unlikely. "

No, the add-on is not necessary to be an atheist. Nor do all atheists tack it on. But it is a common addendum.

 

[1137]

The answer "I do not know" means nothing more than "I do not know".

Exactly why atheism and agnosticism differ!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think perhaps the confusion is that many atheists do mean more than "I don't know". They often also tack on "but the existence of gods is extremely unlikely. "

No, the add-on is not necessary to be an atheist. Nor do all atheists tack it on. But it is a common addendum.

Is it? I find that it may be common when talking about whatever various human-created, religious god-concepts, such as saying it's highly unlikely that the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god exists. But, I haven't found such a statement common when referring to the ambiguous concept of the existence of an entity which humans might describe as a god.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Exactly why atheism and agnosticism differ!

"I don't know, so I don't hold that belief." What atheism adds to agnosticism. Rational and consistent.

 

[Falvlun]

Is it? I find that it may be common when talking about whatever various human-created, religious god-concepts, such as saying it's highly unlikely that the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god exists. But, I haven't found such a statement common when referring to the ambiguous concept of the existence of an entity which humans might describe as a god.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Of course. I was just trying to clarify which type you were referring to.

 

[ArtieE]

I think perhaps the confusion is that many atheists do mean more than "I don't know". They often also tack on "but the existence of gods is extremely unlikely. "

Those are agnostics!

 

[ArtieE]

Exactly why atheism and agnosticism differ!

Sure. Agnosticism is absence of knowledge, atheism absence of belief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"What" has been testable.
"Who" has not.

multiverses are testable? or are you thinking of some other spontaneous universe creating mechanism?

 

[Revoltingest]

multiverses are testable? or are you thinking of some other spontaneous universe creating mechanism?

I don't claim multiverses exist.
But they're possible.

 

[1137]

"I don't know, so I don't hold that belief." What atheism adds to agnosticism. Rational and consistent.

Ok let me try to somehow simplify and illustrate more. To start, simply answer this question: do you believe, based on reason and evidence, that it is more likely that there is at least one god, or more likely that there are no gods?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Who seems like an extra presumption to me. Wouldn't occams razor suggest we pick what, as we can infer something happened.

If you see 'HELP' spelled out on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there..

Occams razor suggests the random action of the waves washed them up that way, the most obvious, simple, apparent explanation at hand, no extra presumption required.

But do you think this is the best explanation? why not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't claim multiverses exist.
But they're possible.

but not testable, anything else?

 

[Falvlun]

Of course. I was just trying to clarify which type you were referring to.

I was referring to "gods" in the general sense.

But your distinction is a good one that I know some people hold.

It's possible my perception is incorrect. Or perhaps atheists aren't all that careful in making the distinction.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok let me try to somehow simplify and illustrate more. To start, simply answer this question: do you believe, based on reason and evidence, that it is more likely that there is at least one god, or more likely that there are no gods?

I don't believe either.

 

[ArtieE]

If you see 'HELP' spelled out on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there..

Occams razor suggests the random action of the waves washed them up that way, the most obvious, simple, apparent explanation at hand, no extra presumption required.

But do you think this is the best explanation? why not?

The best explanation would be that some human familiar with the English language wrote it. Nobody rational would suggest that a god wrote it would they?

 

[1137]

I don't believe either.

So you think there's a 50/50% chance either way? Not even so much as 51/49 towards atheism?

 

[Revoltingest]

but not testable, anything else?

Could be anything imaginable.
Your guess is as good (not quite) as mine.

 

[Falvlun]

If you see 'HELP' spelled out on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there..

Occams razor suggests the random action of the waves washed them up that way, the most obvious, simple, apparent explanation at hand, no extra presumption required.

But do you think this is the best explanation? why not?

Occam's razor wouldn't suggest any such thing. The only thing we know of that writes is human. The very existence of writing would be evidence that a human was there. We've never had any evidence that waves could randomly write messages. Thus the simplest explanation is that a human wrote that message.

The simplest explanation in one scenario is not always the simplest explanation in another.