Pseudoskepticism and logic

I'm a bit confused. Are you arguing that an atheist needs to provide evidence for their views?According to wiki, Agnosticism is just the view that certain claims are unknown or unknowable. Just because something is unknowable doesn't preclude a person from having a claim. You can be both agnostic and atheistic. You don't believe in God but you concede that the existence of God is unknown at this time or unknowable.The people who need to provide evidence for their claims are the ones who are not agnostic (e.g. those who claim to know that God exists or doesn't exist). Because they claim it is knowable, they must provide the empirical data to support their claim.

Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism, according to wiki, just means that certain claims are not known (there is no currently available data to support or refute the claim) or are unknowable (there can never be any data to support or refute the claim). What I meant by my example is that any person who knows for a fact, one way or the other, must provide empirical data to support their claims.For example, I am an agnostic Deist. I am a Deist because I believe in God, although my idea of God is somewhat modified from the Judeo-Christian God. And I am agnostic because while I believe God exists, I cannot know that he exists. For me, it is a matter of faith. I'd be happy to tell you my subjective reasons for believing, but I am almost certain my subjective reasons won't convince you if you happen to not believe in God. So I feel anything unknowable shouldn't be argued as if it is, i.e. trying to convince someone of your claim because your claim is right and theirs is wrong. That, to me, shouldn't be done.It's the difference between believing and knowing. Belief, in the context that I am using it, is faith. For me, faith is generally unknowable and so shouldn't be argued at all. People should not be trying to convince others of something that can't be proven. Once something is knowable it isn't faith, it's knowledge. And if something is knowable, then there should be empirical data that can be used to support this knowable claim.That's why I have a lot of problems with those faux Christians who attempt to shove religion down everyone's throats. They claim to know God exists, but can't prove it using empirical data. And they need to use empirical data to prove the existence of God because we set science to the same standards since science deals with knowledge. After all, we don't accept string theory just because someone says it to be true. When the LHC starts running, we'll have data to begin to falsify string theory.On the same token, I don't like atheists doing the same thing, although admittedly, I haven't met as many atheists who do. But if an atheist knows that God doesn't exist, then the atheist also needs to provide empirical data to support their claim.Basically, I set any claim that is knowable to the same standard that science is set to.Disclaimer: When I say "know," I mean know in the mental sense, as in knowledge. I don't mean "know" in the "heart", "gut", or "soul" sense which is just a metaphorical way of implying faith.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Well, for an atheist who claims to know that God doesn't exist, then yes, that person needs to show empirical data to prove it. (see above reply for my stance on data.) Arguing the absence of evidence as evidence of absence is inadequate as I could argue that the Higgs Boson doesn't exist as there is an absence of evidence supporting its existence. Remember, mathematical models support the existence of the boson, but models must be supported by observation and experimentation.Think about it this way - black holes were hypothesized to exist before we detected them. Mathematical models were built showing their existence. But it wasn't until we detected the predicted effects of the black holes that astrophysics could know they existed. The predictions from the model corresponded to the data gathered.But this is only for those who claim that they know God exists or doesn't exist. For those who don't know, they can state their reasons for making their claim, but it is of little use trying to convince others of their claims because they can't offer up the evidence to support it.Which goes to this point: A person who knows must not offer up subjective evidence. For me to say God exists because of what he has done in my life, while evidence, can have alternative explanations, like coincidence. Empirical data, however, is harder to explain away so easily.Take ETs as an example. I can argue the existence of aliens and offer evidence of crop circles and eyewitness accounts of flying saucers and blurry photos. There's certainly an abundance of evidence supporting the existence of ETs. But empirical evidence would be a spaceship landing on the lawn of the White House, an ET walking out of the craft, and an autopsy performed before the eyes of billions over television. If that happened, then it'd be hard to argue against the existence of ETs, wouldn't it?That's why empirical data is so important in discussions of what is knowable. This isn't a court case. In the US criminal court system, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. There can be doubt someone did something, but you have to be reasonable sure the person committed the crime. That's why OJ got off, even though people "know" he did it, it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it. And preponderance of evidence, the standard for the US civil court system, which is whomever has more evidence supporting their side, is an even more horrible standard to do science. Science sets the standard high because empirical data can, and often does, remove all doubt.