Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[gnostic]

I agree, that's a bad analogy. Most analogies suffer when they are removed from the specific context, though, so I can't judge too harshly.

No, Falvlun. It is a stupid analogy.

 

[sayak83]

Where's the cat? He wants to sit in the box.

The box contains Schrodinger's cat.

I know the cat is definitely alive in the box (theism)
I know the cat is definitely dead in box (naturalism)
I can never know for certain whether the cat is alive or dead in that closed box (agnosticism)
I do not believe in the proposition that the cat is definitely alive in the box(atheism)
I do not believe in the proposition that the cat is definitely dead in the box (a-naturalism)
I know that the cat is both alive and dead in the box. (Pantheism??!!)
The cat, dead or alive, either suffered or is suffering in the box. (Buddhism)
The box and the cat are one. (Advaita Hinduism)
It depends on the person, the box and the cat. (Subjectivism)
Let's establish what a cat in a box really means. (Socrates)
.....
etc.

 

[Vinayaka]

 

[Sha'irullah]

There is something called agnostic atheist.
Agnostic Atheist - Dictionary Definition

Basically an agnostic atheist places zero weight-age on things that are not known (is there existence after death, is there a God, are there alien life forms?) and instead places all weights on things that are known (this life exists, this world with its natural laws exists, humans exist) in deciding how to live and act.

An agnostic is an atheist. You have either gnostic or agnostic atheists. If you are not convinced you either still commit to it or do not.
Years ago I was an agnostic atheist as I was unsure as to whether a god of some sort exists and now I am a gnostic atheist as I have found reason to discredit all gods.

The same is also true of theism as you have have agnostic or gnostic claims about deities.

 

[sayak83]

An agnostic is an atheist. You have either gnostic or agnostic atheists. If you are not convinced you either still commit to it or do not.
Years ago I was an agnostic atheist as I was unsure as to whether a god of some sort exists and now I am a gnostic atheist as I have found reason to discredit all gods.

The same is also true of theism as you have have agnostic or gnostic claims about deities.

yes. i agree.

 

[gnostic]

You're more than welcome to twist it any way you want . But yeah, when the majority of online atheists solely rely on dishonest philosophy I take issue. Any real seeker of truth would.

Again, more stereotypes.

Most of atheists I know personally, simply "don't believe in the existence of god or gods", which require "no philosophy".

Philosophy indicate a person will reflect or analyse certain thoughts on the matter, and apply his reasoning, with other people following his line of thought.

Most of cousins who are atheists, don't follow any philosophy on atheism. And they don't follow or idolise any atheist philosopher. They don't care what Dawkins think on atheism. Heck, none of my cousins feel the need to argue with creationists about creation or creationism, or about Adam, Moses or Jesus. My cousins don't hate theists, they simply are not interested in getting into argument on the matter. My cousins think that if someone is a theist, because he believe in god, then it is really none of their business, just as a theist has no business in interfering with their lack of belief.

I am agnostic, I don't follow any philosophy of agnosticism, and I am not interest in following other people's agnosticism.

Atheists can be "atheist" without all the baggage of philosophy of atheism. Sure, some atheists do have philosophy, but I think a great more people, don't care one way or another about philosophy. Having philosophy are not essential requirements for atheists or agnostics.

To give you example of not requiring any philosophy. I don't like to eat octopus or squid. Do I need to develop a philosophy for not eating octopus or squid?

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Willamena]

An agnostic is an atheist. You have either gnostic or agnostic atheists. If you are not convinced you either still commit to it or do not.
Years ago I was an agnostic atheist as I was unsure as to whether a god of some sort exists and now I am a gnostic atheist as I have found reason to discredit all gods.

The same is also true of theism as you have have agnostic or gnostic claims about deities.

There's no such thing as gnostic atheists.

 

[Curious George]

Can you elaborate and/or clarify perhaps?

Sure. It is not an argument for atheism. Is an argument regarding the burden of proof. Because atheists are fond of bringing up the burden of proof, they bring up this argument to explain it. This argument in no way suggests that atheism is right or supported. Rather it is an explanation of the thought behind many people's reasoning. What isn't explained is that it is arbitrary. The assignment of truth value as negative is ingrained in many people so they do not realize the arbitrary nature. Skepticism has us assume something is not true until it is proven otherwise. Because of how Skepticism is taught in our society, many people rely on this in evaluating propositions. Hence, why I would suggest that a multi-valued truth system is more appropriate to answer this question. However, if we are applying the law of the excluded middle such an option is not available. The consequence of both this societal influence and the restriction to a binary valued truth system is that we we get people who approach a question with the assumption of no until proven otherwise. Equally valuable is if you approach the question with yes for the mutually exclusive questions. But here is where it gets tricky. Approaching the question with two simple yes answers or no answers would normally tell us nothing. However because people like atheism as contingent on whether one believes a god exists as opposed to whether one believes a god does not exist, two no answers create an atheist and two yes answers create a theist. Since there is a cultural subtlety favoring Skepticism, we see more people fit into the atheist category (incidentally this is the same logic that groups babies and rocks into the atheist category).

So, in summary, this is not an argument for atheism just aneed analogy regarding the burden of proof and how we approach a question given a binary truth system. The problem with this system is not in the system because either way works (assigning values of yes or no). The problem is in the definition of atheist. But good luck trying to have a conversation on that (you will end up with 30+ pages of no change and everyone involved with carpal tunnel).

 

[sayak83]

There's no such thing as gnostic atheists.

A person who believes that metaphysical naturalism is true will be a gnostic atheist.

 

[Willamena]

A person who believes that metaphysical naturalism is true will be a gnostic atheist.

That suggests that any metaphysical image is correct.

Edit: If one metaphysical image is knowledge, and knowledge is of truth, and a metaphysical image is dependent on something so arbitrary as being foundational belief, then literally any metaphysical image could be correct. I don't accept that.

 

[sayak83]

That suggests that any metaphysical image is correct.

Edit: If one metaphysical image is knowledge, and knowledge is of truth, and a metaphysical image is dependent on something so arbitrary as being foundational belief, then literally any metaphysical image could be correct. I don't accept that.

It's a matter of definition. If someone claims to have knowledge that metaphysical or ontological naturalism is true, he then also believes that he has knowledge that non-natural entities like gods do not exist. So a gnostic atheist is possible. Whether somebody like that exists or not is a different matter. A logical positivist? A Marxist?

 

[Willamena]

It's a matter of definition. If someone claims to have knowledge that metaphysical or ontological naturalism is true, he then also believes that he has knowledge that non-natural entities like gods do not exist. So a gnostic atheist is possible. Whether somebody like that exists or not is a different matter. A logical positivist? A Marxist?

A claim of knowledge isn't necessarily knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why does the minor difference matter?

Because you call it dishonesty, apparently.

Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness.

It is weird to discuss things on such terms, which cover the matter with an attempt at making it consequential and therefore obfuscate the truth.

A far better description would be "atheism is a economical stance which attempts to avoid unnecessary, meaningless, misleading assumptions and presumptions".

This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief.

If you take as a premise that there must be some take on honesty involved and that it must be a belief of some form, then sure.

It turns out to be a premise that is barely connected with and quite unrepresentative of real facts, though.

The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples.

Hardly.

Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Better awareness of the irony, if you ask me.

 

[Blackdog22]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Is this the point where I get to make up an argument most Theists have never heard of and then call them all ignorant and dishonest?

Anyways..... ill play along I guess... First off in this ridiculous example how do I know a box exists? Can't show me one? Alright were done, examples over. Atheists 1 Theists 0

 

[Blackdog22]

Exactly, and that's just the problem. In fact, I'd guess these dishonest tactics are used explicitly to avoid the burden of proof!

You got us, thats it. Us dog gone atheists actually have to prove every idea ever is false. Unfortunately I can't prove Santa doesn't actually exist therefore HE DOES EXIST! AHA?

Now I understand. You can't deny literally anything unless you have proven, for a fact, that it doesn't exist!! Holy crap every ridiculous idea ever presented EVER is now TRUE! And the burden of proof is on anyone who has no idea how anyone came to these conclusion and doubts it!! Good job bro!

Im off to study literally every religion ever because they are now all true and something awful may happen to me if im wrong about any of them. I just couldn't meet the burden of proof to disprove them all. I sincerely wish I could give you 100 likes for this post.

 

[HonestJoe]

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy.

It’s not really aimed at a philosophy, it’s aimed at the practical reality of adherents of specific monotheistic religions who claim the know exactly what is in the box and make definitive assertions for what we should all do with it.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness.

Well plenty of people oversell the conclusions of their ideas but I don’t think this particular logical argument can be taken to say what atheism is, it’s just supporting the rationale for a specific position.

The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples.

The analogy itself doesn’t refer to either atheism of agnosticism and most people, on all sides of the debate, have a tendency to confuse and conflate the two terms in practice. It is essentially an agnostic argument (though that could be said to extend to weak atheism) and again, if people oversell the point then that’s their problem.

None of that makes the fundamental philosophical point invalid. None of us knows what’s in the box.

 

[Valjean]

You can either begin by believing everything, and ruling things out, one by one,
or you can begin with a blank slate and add beliefs as evidence accrues.

Which approach makes more sense? Which is more feasible?

 

[LuisDantas]

An agnostic is an atheist. You have either gnostic or agnostic atheists. If you are not convinced you either still commit to it or do not.
Years ago I was an agnostic atheist as I was unsure as to whether a god of some sort exists and now I am a gnostic atheist as I have found reason to discredit all gods.

The same is also true of theism as you have have agnostic or gnostic claims about deities.

Agnostic theists exist, although it is perhaps a difficult stance to keep.

 

[Jumi]

Interesting analogy. I'd argue that no one sees anything in the jar, but there is speculation whether there is something in the jar or what the label for the jar should be. Theists argue that there must be something in the jar and atheists are ones who are not convinced, they haven't seen anything in the jar and say it out loud. They might be ignorant of the labels themselves, so it would be hard to find the right jar. Agnostics seem to be the ones who have some idea about the jar but are unsure if there is something. For theists seeking to proselytize it must be uncomfortable to talk about the contents to someone who isn't convinced already that there are contents in a jar, or if the labels are accurate in the first place.