What would it take to disprove atheism?

[UnReAL13]

So you're agnostic about the existence of Leprechauns?

This comes across as Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Just because I'm Agnostic, Ignostic actually, towards god doesn't mean I have to carry the same level of uncertainty towards any random and wild notion. With an infinite amount of possibilities for "what god is", it seems ridiculous to immediately correlate the concept with fairies and leprechauns. I can reasonably say that I don't believe in Leprechauns, as they are traditionally defined, with just a slight hint of uncertainty. Agnostic ALeprechaunist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This comes across as Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Just because I'm Agnostic, Ignostic actually, towards god doesn't mean I have to carry the same level of uncertainty towards any random and wild notion. With an infinite amount of possibilities for "what god is", it seems ridiculous to immediately correlate the concept with fairies and leprechauns. I can reasonably say that I don't believe in Leprechauns, as they are traditionally defined, with just a slight hint of uncertainty. Agnostic ALeprechaunist.

No, it's not an argumentum ad absurdum. The simple reason for that is because there is equal evidence to support the existence of leprechauns as there is for the existence of a god.

You are justified in believing that leprechauns are make believe, just as you are justified in believing a god is.

Can either one be categorically disproven? no. But if absolute knowledge was required to hold a justified belief, then there are very few beliefs we can actually hold.

 

[UnReAL13]

No, it's not an argumentum ad absurdum. The simple reason for that is because there is equal evidence to support the existence of leprechauns as there is for the existence of a god.

You are justified in believing that leprechauns are make believe, just as you are justified in believing a god is.

Can either one be categorically disproven? no. But if absolute knowledge was required to hold a justified belief, then there are very few beliefs we can actually hold.

The difference is that Leprechauns have a definition and description that's generally agreed upon. At the very least, we can say that we haven't identified what appears to be a Leprechaun in reality. With the god concept we're stuck at trying to form a definition.

Absolute knowledge is only necessary to justify Gnostic claims, because otherwise it defeats the point of being Gnostic to begin with. We also can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this isn't a claim that most people would take that seriously. Unless you really believe in Pastafarianism.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

For a knowledge claim to be fully justified, you would have to be absolutely certain. If there's any room for doubt, even the slightest percentage, then technically you should be Agnostic. I don't think any form of knowledge is absolute, but there are varying degrees of certainty.

If the acknowledgment of any doubt and the admission that "I might be wrong" requires one to take on the mantle of "agnostic," that word would be so widely applied that it would lose its usefulness.

A Gnostic Atheist is someone who believes AND knows that no kind of god exists. There's a strong implication of absolute certainty with this position. Agnostic Atheism is a much more intellectually honest position. Gnosticism means "to know", although the Catch 22 is that this is a belief system in itself. It's when you believe that something can be known, beyond any reasonable doubt. To claim knowledge is to be certain of the knowledge you're claiming.

There doesn't need to be an implication of absolute certainty, unless you have the (frankly bizarre) notion that knowledge requires absolute certainty (as opposed to, say, reasonable certainty).

 

[UnReAL13]

If the acknowledgment of any doubt and the admission that "I might be wrong" requires one to take on the mantle of "agnostic," that word would be so widely applied that it would lose its usefulness.


There doesn't need to be an implication of absolute certainty, unless you have the (frankly bizarre) notion that knowledge requires absolute certainty (as opposed to, say, reasonable certainty).

Anyone can be Agnostic towards anything. I don't think the term is used often enough in all honesty. It is meant to refer to "spiritual knowledge" though.

So if someone admits they only have "reasonable certainty", how is that any different from being in an Agnostic position?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The difference is that Leprechauns have a definition and description that's generally agreed upon. At the very least, we can say that we haven't identified what appears to be a Leprechaun in reality. With the god concept we're stuck at trying to form a definition.

Absolute knowledge is only necessary to justify Gnostic claims, because otherwise it defeats the point of being Gnostic to begin with. We also can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this isn't a claim that most people would take that seriously. Unless you really believe in Pastafarianism.

I'd say if you can't give a being a definition, then you can't be in a position of believing it exists, or even think it possible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Anyone can be Agnostic towards anything. I don't think the term is used often enough in all honesty. It is meant to refer to "spiritual knowledge" though.

So if someone admits they only have "reasonable certainty", how is that any different from being in an Agnostic position?

Because there is a possibility you could be wrong about almost everything you claim to know. The only thing you can be certain about are self-imposed labels (i.e. your name) and math.

You'd have to claim you're an agnostic over such basic ideas as the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning. After all, there exists an incredibly small probability that the earth is going to get knocked out of it's orbit by an undetected rogue planet, or that the sun could unexpectedly explode.

Either way, you can't claim absolute knowledge.

Using agnosticism by the definition you are trying to use renders the term absolutely meaningless. It would describe basically every one of our beliefs. we couldn't claim to know anything for the most part. It's ridiculous.

In reality we can claim to know a lot of things, and we do. Absolute knowledge is not required to do that.

 

[UnReAL13]

Because there is a possibility you could be wrong about almost everything you claim to know. The only thing you can be certain about are self-imposed labels (i.e. your name) and math.

You'd have to claim you're an agnostic over such basic ideas as the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning. After all, there exists an incredibly small probability that the earth is going to get knocked out of it's orbit by an undetected rogue planet, or that the sun could unexpectedly explode.

Either way, you can't claim absolute knowledge.

Using agnosticism by the definition you are trying to use renders the term absolutely meaningless. It would describe basically every one of our beliefs. we couldn't claim to know anything for the most part. It's ridiculous.

In reality we can claim to know a lot of things, and we do. Absolute knowledge is not required to do that.

Isn't our understanding of Science predicated on the view that nothing can be known with absolute certainty? As I said, Agnosticism is primarily intended for knowledge of the spiritual nature. Although there are still other areas of study where it seems perfectly rational to state that one cannot be "certain" of the knowledge they're obtaining.

It may seem like it becomes meaningless to you, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I've seen Agnostics apply the concept to just about anything, and sensibly at that. I'd rather be confident about my ignorance than ignorant about my confidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Isn't our understanding of Science predicated on the view that nothing can be known with absolute certainty?

For sure, but that does not mean that we can't say we know things that we discover scientifically. It just means we always have to be open to the idea that we could be wrong.

As I said, Agnosticism is primarily intended for knowledge of the spiritual nature. Although there are still other areas of study where it seems perfectly rational to state that one cannot be "certain" of the knowledge they're obtaining.

Except we're not talking about "knowledge of the spiritual nature" we are talking about the potential existence of a god.

It may seem like it becomes meaningless to you, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I've seen Agnostics apply the concept to just about anything, and sensibly at that. I'd rather be confident about my ignorance than ignorant about my confidence.

You're missing the point. Ignorance and confidence have nothing to do with this, what we're talking about is justification.

 

[UnReAL13]

For sure, but that does not mean that we can't say we know things that we discover scientifically. It just means we always have to be open to the idea that we could be wrong.

There are definitely scientific facts that we can be so "reasonably certain" of that it becomes accepted as "knowledge". There is of course, always that chance that our entire perception is flawed and everything we think we know is a distortion of what reality actually is.

Except we're not talking about "knowledge of the spiritual nature" we are talking about the potential existence of a god.

What's the difference? Have to put on my Ignostic hat for that one.

You're missing the point. Ignorance and confidence have nothing to do with this, what we're talking about is justification.

So then how can the Gnostic claims of either Atheism or Theism ever actually be justified? It's a world of difference to say "I don't believe in god, because..." than to say "I know there is no god, because..."

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I didn't realize Atheism had been "proven" by anyone. I think the OP is referring to Strong or Gnostic Atheism, which is equally as unjustifiable as Gnostic Theism. There has to be some kind of evidence to verify either end of the spectrum.

I like to think of the default position as "atheist." The atheist is no more convinced that there isn't a god than a theist is convinced there is.

But the one making the claim that there is a god is the one who needs to offer supporting evidence. The atheist does not because he simply doesn't believe the claims theists are making.

I'm my opinion, it is the simplest and most obvious position to take on theism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There are definitely scientific facts that we can be so "reasonably certain" of that it becomes accepted as "knowledge". There is of course, always that chance that our entire perception is flawed and everything we think we know is a distortion of what reality actually is.

That's exactly my point. You don't need absolute knowledge in order to say you know something. You are not agnostic about the belief the sun is going to come up tomorrow, you are completely justified in saying you know it's going to rise. In fact, you can justifiably claim to know exactly what time it'll come up if you work out the details.

What's the difference? Have to put on my Ignostic hat for that one.

The existence or non existence of god (or anything for that matter) is a scientific question, not a spiritual one.

So then how can the Gnostic claims of either Atheism or Theism ever actually be justified? It's a world of difference to say "I don't believe in god, because..." than to say "I know there is no god, because..."

Depends how you define it. If you're claiming absolute 100% certain knowledge, then it can't be truly justified.

However, if you're saying you know there is no god in the same sense that you say you know there are no leprechauns, I'd call that a justifiable statement.

 

[Deidre32]

I think where I'm at with it all is, I don't need to know and I'm comfortable not seeking answers anymore. No one knows if a deity exists or doesn't with absolute certainty. Faith is not certainty. Atheism doesn't offer certainty, either. Instead, it offers me a place to say, I'm done chasing what 'might' be, and going to concentrate on what IS.

 

[UnReAL13]

That's exactly my point. You don't need absolute knowledge in order to say you know something.

You can always claim to know something, but whether or not that claim is justified is a different story.

The existence or non existence of god (or anything for that matter) is a scientific question, not a spiritual one.

So the nature of what's considered to be "spiritual" can't be based in science? I would say it's a metaphysical question.

Depends how you define it. If you're claiming absolute 100% certain knowledge, then it can't be truly justified.

Agreed.

 

[Aldebaran]

So the nature of what's considered to be "spiritual" can't be based in science? I would say it's a metaphysical question.

Scientists talk about the possibility of multiple dimensions. Imagine that! States of existence beyond what we can currently see, hear, or touch. I guess as long as it's called "science", it's valid. But if you use different terminology, such as spiritual realm rather than alternate dimensions, then it suddenly has to relegated to religion, something to be ignored by thinking people.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Scientists talk about the possibility of multiple dimensions. Imagine that! States of existence beyond what we can currently see, hear, or touch. I guess as long as it's called "science", it's valid. But if you use different terminology, such as spiritual realm rather than alternate dimensions, then it suddenly has to relegated to religion, something to be ignored by thinking people.

Science can show you the process that leads one to conclude that there could be multiple dimensions. Religion either can't or won't, but insists that you believe it anyway, so yes, it can be ignored by thinking people.

 

[Aldebaran]

Science can show you the process that leads one to conclude that there could be multiple dimensions. Religion either can't or won't, but insists that you believe it anyway, so yes, it can be ignored by thinking people.

But the point I was trying to make is that alternate dimensions and the spiritual realm could in fact be the same. Who cares if religion can't or won't? Doesn't the fact that science does it lead one into what you would call a validation of a religious idea?

 

[Deidre32]

Science can show you the process that leads one to conclude that there could be multiple dimensions. Religion either can't or won't, but insists that you believe it anyway, so yes, it can be ignored by thinking people.

Well said!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But the point I was trying to make is that alternate dimensions and the spiritual realm could in fact be the same. Who cares if religion can't or won't? Doesn't the fact that science does it lead one into what you would call a validation of a religious idea?

They could in fact be the same, or they could in fact be different. Religious people have made all sorts of conflicting claims about the spiritual realm and its contents. These claims are not all suddenly validated by the finding that something akin to a spiritual realm exists. Further, if such a finding were to materialise, the religious would have nothing to brag about because our knowledge of it was obtained by science, not religion. It matters that religion can't or won't validate its ideas.

 

[Aldebaran]

They could in fact be the same, or they could in fact be different. Religious people have made all sorts of conflicting claims about the spiritual realm and its contents. These claims are not all suddenly validated by the finding that something akin to a spiritual realm exists. Further, if such a finding were to materialise, the religious would have nothing to brag about because our knowledge of it was obtained by science, not religion. It matters that religion can't or won't validate its ideas.

So if science shows alternate dimensions do exist, and that they are in fact the spiritual realms of the bible, are you telling me that it still doesn't matter because it was science instead of religion that made the discovery? Is that really what you're saying?

That would be like saying that if a hiker stumbled upon an artifact that was of great significance, it wouldn't matter because it wasn't an archaeologist that found it.