renderator

Hello, everybody.

My question is to agnostics. Why are you not atheists?
For example, I say that there are little pink elephants living on the Moon. They are very fast and smart and hide quickly, so nobody has never revealed them and will never reveal them. Do you believe you really cannot answer if these little pink elephants exist or not?
Or R. Dawkins' example of a flying teapot?

Is God more possible than those little pink elephants or the teapot? Why?

Buddha

I am an agnostic because I can not disprove "god".

__________________
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are american dreams

marmalade

Atheism is about believing that God doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is about not knowing whether God exists.

Even many theists claim that God can't be rationally known because many theists consider belief to be the central or only way of experiencing God. By this definition that God can never fully be known(in the rational sense), everyone is agnostic. The hypothesis of God is unproveable because its unfalsifiable.

So, it depends on the definition of God you are using. I think agnostic theism is the only possible "rational" definition of God. If God exists, then obviously he is beyond our knowledge in any normal use of that word; or else there would be a concensus of God's existence, his specific traits, and his preferred religion.

And if God could be known not to exist, then there would be an opposite concensus.

renderator

But in fact, you cannot disprove a lot of things: the flying teapot, fairies, Macaroni Monster etc. Does it mean that all of them can exist?

El_Mariachi64

That's exactly right. To be completely honest, you have to admit that since we can't disprove them, there is the slight possibility that these ridiculous ideas do exist. But its a matter of probability.

Most agnostics think this (at least I do)..While I cannot disprove god, I acknowledge it is highly unlikely that one exists. Much more unlikely than me winning the lottery. Its the same deal for all deities and fairies and leprechauns.

Just because we acknowledge their probability, does not give them the same validity or legitimacy as arguments that have science and reason as their backbone. Those arguments ("flying teapot, fairies, Macaroni Monster") are easily disregarded.

Agnostics and atheists have a lot more in common than is at first is evident. Its just mostly a disagreement in terminology. But If we could all look inside each other's heads...I'm pretty sure we'd all think the same.

renderator

It's strong atheism. But there is also weak atheism, which means the absence of belief in any deity. Not advancing the hypothesis of God, as there is no reason to.

The same question: do you think that Macaroni Monster and fairies can exist? You also can't disprove their existance.

But the reality around you is also unfalsifiable, you can get only the reflection of it with your sense bodies. You cannot prove that the reality is not just a Matrix, the product of your imagination. So you have to be even more believer than theists are.

Vinterland

You will have to clarify by what you mean by atheist. It seems that you contend that an atheist must be sure that there is no God. This is a false definition and shoots down the rest of your statements. EVERY agnostic, if not an atheist, is a theist; it's one or the other.

As for comparing God to fairies and whatnot, the question of God is much more implicative, granted importance alone does not measure how true something is. I think if anyone puts God in the same level as leprechauns and Santa, then they are question begging by assuming none of those exist.

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

marmalade

In my first post, I was using atheism in its more common meaning. I'm aware of weak atheism and its the label that most closely approximates my position. I don't advance the hypothesis of God not because of reasons related to knowledge and belief. I'm simply unsure that theism is the most useful description of my non-rational experiences. The term "God" is either too general or too simplistic as most people use it, but I have no personal issues with the term.

Such things are outside of my experience and apparently outside of the experience of everyone one else I've ever met. As far as I know, no one is seriously claiming to believe or to know of the existence of them. If I were personally to experience a Macaroni Monster or a fairy, then it would be a different matter.

I agree. I can't absolutely prove anything nor even prove the clear probability of one perspective over another. I tend to doubt everything including reality, but I do trust the combined efforts of my intuition and rational mind. I don't need to claim knowledge nor ignorance. I don't need to claim belief nor disbelief. Life is what it is, and I try my best to simply accept it as it is. Nonetheless, I do have strong suspicions about many things that come close to a sense of knowing or believing.

Nothing is sacred to me not even mundane reality. This isn't a practical way of living, but its who I am. I have a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. It doesn't necessarily bother me whether or not reality is a matrix, or at least not any more disturbing than the possibility that I'm merely a physical organism controlled by biological instincts and reflexes. I see life as an infinite pattern of possibilities and potentials. Sometimes I find this an inspiring attitude and sometimes quite depressing.

renderator

But when do you really have to advance such a hypothesis?
For example, you cannot start the engine of your car. There is something wrong with the engine. When do you have to advance the hypothesis that there is a dwarf settled in it or God does not allow your engine to start. Never! It explains absolutely nothing. It gives you no idea how to fix the problem. So this hypothesis is always absolutely improbable, cause there can never be the situation, you have to advance these ridiculous hypotheses.

Absolutely. But I have read a lot of postigs here stating that atheism is some kind of religion. I think it's because of misunderstanding of what atheism really is.
The absence of God is a necessary premise for rationality, not a belief.

PS. Excuse me for my bad English.

romansh

Hi V
I see why you might think agnostics are atheists based on your above definition. But for me, I also have a significant disbelief in the absence of god.

renderator
I can't prove or disprove the the existence of many things, but I can do mind experiments and prove to myself the possibility of certain very unlikely things. eg flying teapots in orbit, we have the technology to put them in orbit and we can give them stealth technology to make them pretty much undetectable, pink elephants we probably could genetically engineer them to be pink, only if the animal rights activists would let us ...
I agree they are unlikely but they are possible.
Regarding fairies... I have checked under the shed at the bottom of the garden.. none were seen.... anywhere else I should look?

what are your definitions of weak and strong atheists?

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams