Refuting Theist Arguments - Why Agnosticism is flawed

Refuting Theist Arguments -- Why Agnosticism is flawed
[An addition to: Refuting Theist Arguments - Negative Proof]

Often times, after informing a theist of their negative proof fallacy, they will proceed to say something similar to: "if you cannot logically prove a negative then why do you adhere to the belief in the non-existence of a God?"
Sometimes they will also say something to the affect of: "Your denial of God and rebellion against him is transparent."

They are essentially asking why I am an atheist and not an agnostic.
The question is valid, and, as such, deserves an answer.
The statement that followed the question is an absurd assertion, as I will show.

My response would be as follows:
Ask the theist if they believe in:
Vishnu, Santa Clause, Kali, Set, Anubis, Jeebo, Jengu, Tyr, Thor, Zeus, Anansi, Allah, Yahweh, Dilga, Cinteotl, Zeme, Ogma, Jade Emperor, Gao Yao, Loki, Osiris, Shiva, Apo, Jumis, Chaac, Nabu, Tabaldak, Sedna, Whope, Heimdall, Tala, Lono, Rongo, Zempat, Vulcan, Dagon, Tiamat, Tengu, Belobog, Utu, Yellow Invisible Dogs, Magical Pixies, Invisible Pink Elephants, Tooth Fairies, Pod People, Big Foot, Wizards, Witches, Flying Cows, Sentient Hog Dogs, Intelligent Silverware, Loch Ness Monsters, Aliens (all sorts), Mermaids, Bahamut, Genies, Ghosts, Imps, Incubus, Succubus, Living Mummies, Nymphs, Ogres, Pegasus, Unicorns, Rocs, Satyrs, Undead creatures, Vampires, Zombies, Lycanthropes, Wraiths, Wyverns, ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC...
This list could go on, literally, forever...

There are an infinite number of beings and creatures that one cannot prove are non-existent.
There is also an equal amount of evidence for the existence of each of these creatures (that is to say, there is no evidence for any of them).

The theist cannot disprove the existence of any of these, so by their logic, they must believe in them all (even though the teachings of some of these religions contradict others).
If they do not believe in Santa, invisible pod people, etc. then they are being inconsistent and illogical in their belief system. If they 'deny' the pod people, then, by their own logic, they are rebelling against the pod people.

Clearly, believing in something because it cannot be proven to not exist is absurd and cannot be done with logical consistency.
It is also clearly absurd to try to say that someone is 'denying' the existence of a being for which there is no evidence.
How can you deny that which does not exist?

Now to address the circumstantial evidence against the existence of all of the aforementioned beings.
When it comes to any religion, when we examine the doctrines of that religion's 'holy texts' and teachings we find evidence that would indicate that the texts were created by humans.

This evidence includes, but is not limited to:
-The fact that all ancient holy texts are filled with little or no scientific fact (and often contain false statements)
-The fact that all religions' gods behave as if they are an ego projection of ancient man
-The fact that all 'holy texts' are riddled with internal contradictions
-The fact that the 'laws' or 'rules' prescribed by a religion's deity (1) reflect the times that the book was written and (2) are designed to protect the interests of the 'chosen group'

As you can see, the circumstantial evidence suggests that all of the aforementioned beings were made up by human beings.
Since the evidence suggests that these beings are of human construction, it is simply not reasonable to believe in any or all of them.

Unless someone can provide proof that any of these things exists; it is simply not logical to believe in them.
Unless theists can prove the existence of one of these things (i.e. their deity or deities); it is logical to assume that these things were made up by people.

The circumstantial evidence against the existence of any deity (or other mythical or supernatural creatures) is the primary reason why agnosticism is flawed.

The only difference between a mainstream deity and the tooth-fairy is the number of devoted followers; and, as we all know, majority belief does not make fact (just look at the percentage of Americans who believe in creationism).

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• refute
• refuting
• theist
• theism
• atheism
• atheist
• religion
• god
• deity
• agnostic
• agnosticism

[3zaqxsw3]

"The theist cannot disprove the existence of any of these [deities], so by their logic, they must believe in them all".

Not necessarily, because when a deity is 'selected', it usually excludes others by saying things like "there are no other gods but me".

[GreenDragon23]

But you see, the selection is arbitrary. There is no evidence or 'proof' that goes into the selection; it is all cultural and emotional.

[anon2999]

Your denial of God and rebellion against him is transparent.

[GreenDragon23]

anon, "YOUR DENIAL OF THE SENTIENT CUCUMBER AND REBELLION AGAINST HIM IS TRANSPARENT"

;)

[philip0460]

Agnosticism is NOT flawed. I don't have the time to type up a litany of reasons your premise is false; however, I'd advise you to check out my channel and view the various videos I've made confronting detractors and explaining why agnosticism is the only rational school of thought.

[GreenDragon23]

Agnosticism is simply not rational when it comes to most things (such as the shape of the earth - things for which we have direct evidence, and things such as god - for which we can see the flaws of the arguments for it, as evaluate probabilites).

Is agnosticism that 'only rational school of thought' regarding the existence of a real superman?

[vQlse]

Brilliant. Thank you

[sailornaruto39]

urgh. i am debating a theists. and i have presented the logic in this vid. Yet the person constantly insists that because something is not disproves it is true. Says that atheists beliefs are based on blind faith and theists are faith based on evidence.

[akaten916]

@mau57 Are you agnostic on the subject of unicorns, Santa Clause or any other mythical beings/creatures?

[mau571]

The only reason on why I'm agnostic and not atheist is simply because I can't prove that any of those gods doesn't exist even though I believe they probably don't(exist)

so I'm 80% atheist and 20% agnostic! is not that I want to believe in a god but I have no reason/prove to completely reject them!

[UncomfortableSilence]

Exactly, very good point. Atheism is the default. No one can be a true agnostic. Evidence either points one way or the other.

[jmdogg88]

maybe there are pod people. we don't know. that's the point of agnosticism; not knowing, yet not dismissing beliefs. i agree that the number of followers is what separates god believers from pod people believers. the question i can't get over is: When did everything start? i know, it is human nature to assume thhat everything has a beginning and an end, and that that may be inaccurate, but i more strongly believe the human mind is too weak to really understand anything, thats why im agnostic.

[OmorosePanya]

(A)theism is about the direct belief in a deity(ies). Agnosticism is about about the proofs associated with it. Ergo, one can be an (a)theist while being agnostic, but one cannot be solely agnostic when it concerns the person's actual belief..

"There's no proof either way" (agnosticism) indicates that nothing has convinced you that a diety(ies) exists, so you don't believe in any. You're not born believing in anything. If nothing has convinced you, you're an atheist. Stop hiding.

[390904902]

Agnostic v atheist = pointless argument.

We should all just lay our different opinions aside, because we shouldn't be enemies.

[defaultideology]

Claiming a question is not a question, or claiming a question is moot is dodging the question. You have not explained how the question is moot. Asserting it, does not make it so. I agree, there is no point in considering transcendence. In that respect, god, in fact, does not exist, and we both agree. However your refusal to engage in conversation with respect to my other questions, leads me to understand that your brand of agnosticism is nothing but dodging all questions.

[defaultideology]

By your logic, then you must be agnostic about everything you don't experience first hand. Every concept presented to you, no matter how strong the evidence, you must reply "I'm agnostic about that." That's the absurdity about agnosticism. I asked you about Santa Clause who has been presented as a human being, with quantifiable attributes. Where you are incorrect is that Mother Goose and Santa Clause are measurable. Saying they are not is how you dodge the question.

[blue4meridian]

In context... no question was given to dodge. A moot question is the same as none at all. I am only once removed from being ignostic which would mean then a refusal to respond to any transcendent question until (which very likely is never) transcendence could be coherenty postulated. Anyway... a concept may be known but not the unknown. The default of the unknown is not knowledge only belief. The concept of "up" (which by the way is not manifest) is 3 dimensionally absurd yet plausable.

[blue4meridian]

You charge is gnostic. My response is agnostic. I can offer no answers only perspective. At the end of the day it's about what floats your boat. The question is neither yes or no because it is moot. In context... the unknown regardless of truth value is not known. Whether I choose to believe in the quantification of infinity, Mother Goose or The Little Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe their existence is not empirically (ie. measurable) manifest, therefore unknown by concensus.

[defaultideology]

I apologize if my charge below sounds cold. I like writing with you. I would however like some direct answers.

Tell me blue4; are you agnostic about Santa Clause? Santa Clause = Man in red suit, white hair and beard, lives on earth's north pole with elves, has flying rain-deer and sled, and delivers presents through people's chimneys and homes throughout the planet on the early morning hours of Dec 25 every year?

This seems to be a yes or no question, however I await your response.

[defaultideology]

I see you are dodging the concept in the question.

It has been my experience that when people dodge questions they have no valid response.

God concepts are not unknown. They are presented as fact and simultaneously as belief. Most theists I know engage in this type of thinking. When people present a god concept to me with blatant contradictory attributes, I know, that god, can not exist. More to the point, that god is absurd as much as the square circle concept.

[blue4meridian]

More to the point (in regard to square circles)... abstraction, anomaly, nomenon, etc. in a relative sense represent extremes, distortions and absurdities. However... these perceptive constructs are no more contradictory than the the notion of direction. "Up" has a meaningful value only relative to where one is located in 3d space to something else.

[blue4meridian]

Agreement of what is known is by consensus. However... this is not knowledge of what is unknown. The default for the unknown is belief (or disbelief) not knowledge. If one knows the unknown, then it is not unknown. The truth value of a square circle is moot, because it is no more knowable than the quantity of infinity. ANY assertion of knowledge of the unknown the default is gnosticism because agnosticism holds that ANYthing unknown is not known. As for myself I am a strong agnostic.

[defaultideology]

1st: I know that square circles (based on our common agreement of these words) do not exist since their existence is impossible. I am gnostic about this. Are you? 2nd: When I am presented with circumstantial evidence about a god that is omniscient (all knowing) yet at the same time can make "decisions," I respond by pointing out those attributes contradict. A is A and A is not A. I know "gnostic" this god can not exist. I suppose I am agnostic about other possible gods not yet presented.

[blue4meridian]

The question then becomes... do you know or simply believe (or disbelieve)? If the answer is you know, then you are gnostic if you believe (or disbelieve), then you are agnostic. If gnostic... then the issue of empirically knowing the unknown (regardless of truth value) becomes a questionable assertion.

[defaultideology]

Yes, I see I have drifted to different points in this string, sorry about that. There are persons that claim that god(s) exist. The claim is also made that this god is knowable. Yet I can not experience god first hand. Nor do I find the circumstantial evidence presented, logical or credible. Therefore, with respect to specific god(s) with defined attributes, my response is that those gods do not exist nor is it possible for their existence. Much like a square circle does not exist.

[blue4meridian]

In context... I don't offer description only perspective. What was referenced was the various parameters of language. In regard to knowledge... the point noted amounts to this... that which is unknown is not known whether fact or fiction. More to the point, transcendence (the "god" question) suggests the unknown. The default for the unknown is belief (or absence of it) not knowledge. In that sense all truth value becomes moot.