Quote from smilingsynic:
Um, YOU were the one who spoke about "the atheist position". The only obfuscation here is from you, and projecting your own faults onto others is really your only option, considering that you've tied yourself up in knots with your own logic. It isn't as if you have the ability to extricate yourself.
After all, you cannot even remember what you wrote.
Your forgetfulness reminds me of that of Charles Barkley, who once complained about being misquoted in his own autobiography.
You, oh slow one, and Sir Charles are quite the entertainers!
I'm calling your bullshit out.
Since you were probably hoping I wouldn't bother to take the time and effort to go back and quote you.
But here goes:
YOU SAID:
Quote from smilingsynic:
Agnostics believe that there is and probably can be no evidence for God's existence yet accept that there may be a possibility, albeit slim, that God's existence could one day be proven.
This arguably is a more reasonable position than atheism, which posits that there cannot possibly be a God and is based, in part, on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance).
Just because up to now there has been no evidence for God's existence does not mean that there is no chance that evidence may turn up in the future. Agnostics at least are open to the possibility of changing their minds, whereas atheists are not.
What's underlined is a blanket statement about atheism that is patently bullshit except in the case of the most ardent strong atheist.
That's why I said:
Quote from DerekD:
That's preposterous. Atheists ask for proof of theist assertions. Clearly if presented with proof that is testable and falsifiable, atheist will concur that God(s) exists. It's that simple.
But since nothing to date lends itself as evidence of God, atheist conclude that there is no god.
Atheists don't deal with chance when there's no reason to suspect chance. But if evidence is presented which induces the possibility of chance, atheists will investigate it.
The agnostic position, as you state it but as many agnostics will disagree with, is most illogical. You can't suspect the probability of existence without reason to suspect it. Meaning, if there is or never will be evidence, you cannot prove existence, ever. The atheist doesn't take that position. Submit evidence, have it tested, and proof you shall have. That is reasonable, logical and prudent.
Appeal to ignorance? Nice try. But that fallacy doesn't apply to this subject matter in the negative defense use of the term.
Then you go all limp-wristed with this bullshit:
Quote from smilingsynic:
I do not appreciate the arrogant, dismissive tone. There is no need for it.
Although neither atheism nor agnosticism has a creed, agnostics in general believe that it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists (uncertain knowledge). Although the evidence AT THIS POINT does not point to a deity, it does not follow that there cannot be a God.
Why not?
Simply put, the only way one could know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe.
This is impossible at this point; all of the collective reason in the world cannot overcome this obstacle. Reason is therefore a limited tool (but the most useful tool in the toolbox!).
You have the audacity to ask for a apology after clearly misstating the atheist position in order to make your position seem as if it takes a high ground?
Only strong agnostics believe that it's impossible to know. Look it up. Weak agnostics, which is the position of agnostics in general, do not.
And only the very strongest atheist believe that there cannot possibly be a god.
What's more you make an assertion which you don't bother to prove that; " the only way one could know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe."
This is no better than a theist which says, you can't understand the bible unless you have faith. It's circular, self-serving reasoning which uses as fact, an assertion.
Allow me to break your position down a little further.
1. You assert that that knowledge of gods is impossible.
Problem with this assertion even before attempting to justify it is that you are effectively stating that you KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GOD(s). You just refuted yourself.
2. You fail to define what a god is yet assert that you cannot ever know if gods exist. Once you attempt to define a god such that you can go ahead and assert that you cannot ever know if this God exists, you define a god that is very much unlike the gods the theists believe in. That sets up a straw man fallacy. As that would misrepresent the god that theists have always asserted and believed in. A knowable interactive god.
Talk about faulty logic.
How then is it more moral to take on an indefensible, illogical position? Doesn't morality imply a standard?
So I ask you to drop the pretense and facade and try backing up your assertions. You're not fooling anyone playing the "gasp, I'm offended, I demand an apology. You must be a troll. I'm going to threaten you with ignore if you don't stop it you brute."
Put up or STFU.
