Agnosticism vs. Atheism

At the risk of making a hasty generalization. I have never (that I recall), in almost two years involved in this debate, come across an atheist that uses this definition. The only people I remeber using this definition were theists or agnostics.Most atheist I have known tend to favour a more literal interretation of these terms, i.e:Theist : belief in god or gods.
Agnostic : without knowledge of god or gods.
Atheist : without belief in god or gods.Using these definitions, everyone is either a theists or an atheist. You either believe or you don't, even an agnostic would be an atheist. Belief requires knowledge, therefore without knowledge you can not believe, making you an atheist.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

There was a time, right about the time I became aware of the fact that I no longer believed in god, when I felt that agnostics where doing exactly that, sitting on the fence. Not believing in god but not quite willing to admit it. For a while I considered agnostics cowardly.Since then I have become far more familiar with what agnostics and atheist, in general, believe and from where I stand the only real differance is in what they call themselves. That and agnostics seem to create a seperate mental category for things that are ill-defined, which is why (I would guess) you are 'atheistic' with regard to Santa, but agnostic with regards to god. Atheists have only two basic categories, that which we have evendence for and that which we don't. For all intents and purposes, everything in the latter category probably doesn't exist.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Bold mine.Surely in order to know that an entity cannot be known, you would have to actually know that entity? Meaning that you actually do know?I can accept a person saying "I don't know and I don't think it is possible to know because all god-concepts I have encountered have been incomprehensible", or something along those lines. Or is this closer to what you ment and I have misinterpreted your statement?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

While I agree that things either exist or they don't, I dissagree with the first part of this. There are two categories with a total of three options: Positive or begative belief (god exists or he doesn't) and the third option (second category) a lack of belief either way. SO while existance is an either/or, belief is not.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The last part of this is where the problem comes in. You don't know what characteristics god is supposed to have. While I agree that most, if not all, the descriptions of god I know of are either logically impossible or unknownable, what you can't know is that ALL god concepts share these characteristics. I can think of many beings that are logically possible and, if they existed, would be detectable, that I would consider gods. I agree, which is why I don't hold this position. From where I am sitting it appears that this is exactly what you are doing. The god comcepts you have heard are unknowable, therefore you assume that ALL god concepts are unknowable. God could also have these same characteristics, it is just that those concepts we have in abundance currently don't have them, that doesn't mean that they can't. Just for interest, I have heard some descriptions of elves that would place them in the same boat as most people descriptions of god, although the elves weren't omni-anything. See above. Just because god is generally defined as supernatural, does mean that a god can't be natural.I agree with your last statement, it just appeared to me that you were ruling out ANY posible god concept as unknowable, without knowing all posible god concepts.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I think Mr Jack's argument is more along the lines of :- if A then B, not B therefore not A.His argument is similar to the one we all use when arguing against a global flood. We know that a global flood would leave evidence, given that this evidence isn't evident we conclude the there was no global flood.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Agreed. I was not taking sides. I was simply pointing out that as far as I could see your representation of Mr Jack's argument was incorrect.Forgive me if this isn't the correct terminology (I have never taken a logic course in my life), but his argument is valid. Ofcourse it only works when god is defined well enough that you know what sort of evidence it should leave behind.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I did mention that in the post you were replying too. Anway, I don't think Mr Jack is trying to use the argument to disprove all gods, only those gods that would leave evidence. Yes, this is most definately on the the better atheism/agnostism and related topic discussions I have ever had.Now if we could only get creationist/fundamentalists more or less on this standard. ------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

There is nothing wrong. The argument is valid assuming that the premise is correct. However for the premise the be correct you need a few things, namely; 1) you need a working definition of what A is and what kind of evidence it would leave, and where, and 2) you need the ability, either natural or technological, to detect this evidence. The second (maybe unstated premise) is that you need to have used this ability to search a sufficiently large segment of the 'where', without having found any evidence of A.In the squid example it is likely that the second 'premise' was not satisfied.Sa basically the argument assumes that you know what A is and what sort of evidence it would leave and that you have looked 'enough' of the right places to claim that there isn't any evidence. What is 'enough' depends what A is.Am I making any sense?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is this different from any other logical argument? They are all dependent on their premises. Agreed, but only when this argument is used in situations where it is not applicable. You can it for specific god's, but not for a generic god.Anyway, I think that this will get us nowhere. We agree on just about everything except what we call ourselves. We are arguing about minute details here.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy