An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

"Brights" just seems arrogant. But I quite like "heathen" as a term to describe subset of atheists who are actually challenging religious doctrines and promoting evidence based inquiry rather than just passively not believing in gods.I'd be happy to be called a "heathen" in that sense.

I do know best. I am looking down my nose. I do like the smell of my own farts.But I still quite like the term "heathen".

Well I am atheistic in that I don't believe in the existence of god(s).
I am agnostic in the sense that I don't claim absolute certainty (which frankly makes me trivially agnostic about everything including the existence of you and everyone else)But I do consider there to be positive evidence that god(s) are human inventions in the same way that Leprechauns and Fairies (probably) are.Does that make me a "positive atheist" or not in your book?

I'm comfortable saying that I know that humans invented the concept of god(s)/Leprechauns/Fairies/etc. and that I know this because of all of the evidence in favour of this positive position. I can take a positive position on that even though I don't claim absolute certainty and I wouldn't say that I'm agnostic on the question of the existence of god(s)/Leprechauns/Fairies/Etc except in this sense of lacking such certainty. Well based on the positive evidence I would say very probably not.Presumably in exactly the same way you would about un-evidenced alternatives to your positive conclusion regarding evolution?

Could you be more specific and explicit about how it is different? I know you think there is a difference. But even after all these years I am not sure exactly what you think the difference is. It seems to me that you apply a double standard. I'm trying to see why you think there isn't one.You say that you are not agnostic about evolution, that you take a positive position on this. Fair enough. But if you are not agnostic about evolution how can you then be agnostic about the un-evidenced alternatives to evolution no matter how unfalsifiable they may be? If I asked you if an un-evidenced unfalsifiable alternative to evolution occurred (e.g. our old friend Last Thursdayism) would you succinctly say "No"....?Or not?

You started this conversation saying that we know evolution occurred as a result of positive evidence. I agree that we do indeed know this.But you cannot claim to know that evolution took place whilst professing to be completely ignorant and uncommitted as to whether something other than evolution (e.g. Last Thursdayism) occurred instead.If you think one occurred you necessarily think the other didn't. This is simply inarguable. We all agree that knowledge is imperfect and potentially fallible. Indeed it was you who suggested that this form of "trivial" agnosticism shouldn't stop us claiming knowledge on the basis of positive evidence. Again - I agreed.Accepting (even tentatively) one position necessary involves rejecting (albeit tentatively) other alternative positions. This is simply inescapable.Yet you seem unable to accept this undeniable fact.CS - Did life evolve on Earth?

How can life have evolved over millions of years as per the evidence if the universe popped into existence as is less than a week ago?It's one or the other. Obviously. So you know life evolved but have no idea if it didn't.Huh?

You could be wrong in your knowledge. We both agree about this.What you can't logically do is know that life evolved on Earth whilst also claiming to have no idea if it didn't.That is the contradiction you find yourself in by relentlessly insisting that unfalsifiable notions cannot be rejected.

Technically I am "trivially agnostic" to Leprechauns/gods/fairies etc. because I cannot disprove the existence of these things any more than you can disprove Last Thursdayism. But, like you, I've already stipulated that the distinction from that is not enough to get me to stop saying that these entities are products of human psychology. If Last Thursdayism occurred then evolution didn't. You have claimed to be (non-trivially) agnostic towards Last Thursdayism. If you don't know whether or not Last Thursdayism occurred then how can you claim to know that evolution did?You cannot logically know that life evolved on Earth whilst also claiming to have no idea if it didn't.Yet this is the contradictory position you find yourself in. The real (comparative) test is to answer this question succinctly:'Did the universe come into being fully formed Last Thursday?I maintain that my position on god(s) is pretty much identical to yours on Last Thursdayism. The key difference is that you are still operating under the illogical assumption that you can be simultaneously ignorant that something hasn't happened whilst having positive (albeit tentative) knowledge that it has.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If I know that X is a dog then I know that X isn't a cat.If I know that the Earth is millions of years old (albeit tentatively) then I know (albeit tentatively) that it isn't less than a week old.Do you actually dispute these statements?Because at the moment you are in the bewilderingly nonsensical position of saying that you know that the Earth is millions of years old whilst maintaining complete ignorance as to whether it is less than a week old.Which is absurd. What are you talking about? This is about knowledge and the logical consequences of knowledge.If you claim complete ignorance as to whether or not the Earth is less than a week old you logically cannot simultaneously claim to know that life on Earth evolved over millions of years can you?Yet here you are doing exactly that. I cannot know for certain but I consider the existence of gods very unlikely.If you want to get technical my position is that it is far more likely that all gods/fairies/Leprechauns/Etc. are products of human psychology than real entities. Relative likelihood, evidenced conclusions more likely to be correct than un-evidenced ones, induction etc. etc.But frankly the subtleties of relative likelihood are going to be lost on you if you cannot even cope with the idea that knowledge of one thing happening necessarily equates to knowledge that a mutually exclusive alternative hasn't.How can you deny this? It's simply inarguable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Er - Yes they are. Apparently not. The Earth cannot be both millions of years old (thus allowing evolution to occur) and less than a week old simultaneously can it? I know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is much much older than 7 days old.

Do you (albeit tentatively) know that the Earth is much much older than 7 days old?

​

Do you (albeit tentatively) know that the Earth wasn't created a mere 7 days ago?

​

If you are struggling to answer these questions without contradicting yourself don't blame me. Ask yourself what it is about your position that leads to such problems. Here is a hint.

​

The problem with your position is that you are abandoning simple logic in order to cling to an (apparently un-shakeable) premise (the same premise that is relevant to the god/atheism question).

​

You start from the premise that those things which are defined as being unknowable demand complete (non-trivial) agnosticism.

​

But then you also claim to know (albeit tentatively) that evidenced things like evolution are true. Combine your premise and your knowledge and you end up in logically nonsensical positions such as:

​

Knowing (albeit it tentatively) that evolution occurred whilst proclaiming complete ignorance as to whether something completely contradictory happened instead.

​

Knowing (albeit it tentatively) that the Earth is billions of years old whilst proclaiming to be completely ignorant as to whether or not it is less than a week old.

​

The problem is with your premise.

CS do you (albeit it tentatively) know how old the Earth is?Can you tell us how old you (albeit tentatively) know the Earth to be?It's a simple question why can't you answer it without contradicting yourself? This is just a fuckwitted way of saying that evidence based knowledge is potentially fallible. As has been said many many times - Yes we all agree that knowledge is potentially fallible, nothing is certain and that our knowledge is thus tentative.However your stated position of knowing that evolution did occur whilst not knowing whether something completely different and mutually exclusive (i.e. Last Thursdayism) happened instead remains logically nonsensical. I'm saying that I know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is billions of years old rather than less than a week old. No matter how supposedly "unknowable" Last Thursdayism may be.I'm also saying that the same principle of positive evidence based knowledge can be applied to conclude that gods/fairies/Leprechauns/etc. are products of human psychology rather than real entities no matter how "unknowable" these are defined to be.I'm saying that many such as yourself have convinced themselves that things defined to be impossible-to evidence and impossible to falsify are "unknowable". I'm saying that your demands for agnosticism towards such things beyond the trivial agnosticism of uncertainty are unjustified and lead to logical inconsistencies. The problem is with your super-glue like adherence to the idea that things which you consider "unknowable" demand more than just uncertainty. The problem is that you are even prepared to abandon logic in order to cling to this silly premise. I know (albeit tentatively) that my son is in the kitchen.My virtue of simple logic I know (albeit tentatively) that my son is NOT in his bedroom.But according to your boggle minded logic I cannot know this. I haven't falsified the notion that my son has suddenly developed some supernatural ability to be in two places at once. So to know he is NOT in his bedroom I must find positive evidence of his absence from his bedroom.Even though I know he is in the kitchen.Your position is ridiculous.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

CS do you (albeit tentatively) know how old the Earth is?Can you tell us how old you (albeit tentatively) know the Earth to be?Do you know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is older than 1 week old?The fact that you can't answer simple direct questions without contradicting yourself should give you cause to ponder exactly what your position is regarding evidence, the knowledge that evidence can or cannot lead to and the logical consequences of this knowledge. But you obviously don't want to face the evident problems you have created for yourself.In conclusion....I know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is billions of years old rather than less than a week old. No matter how supposedly "unknowable" Last Thursdayism may be.The same principle of positive evidence based knowledge can be applied to conclude that gods/fairies/Leprechauns/etc. are products of human psychology rather than real entities no matter how "unknowable" these are defined to be.Anyone who considers this some sort of unjustifiable form of "positive atheism" should be asking themselves what they know and what the logical consequences of that knowledge is. The results will not be comfortable.As for the explicit topic - I get why many think the term "atheist" is perfectly adequate. But I think there is a case for distinguishing between those who just passively don't believe and those (such as Dawkins, Hitchens etc.) who take a more active approach to demonstrating the flaws with theistic thinking through the application of science and reason.Edited by Straggler, : spelling

I've just seen this having replied.