Pseudoskepticism and logic

If that is the case, then what exactly is different about them? They sound analogous without the qualifiers there. Unless of course from the outset their claim entails that it is an unprovable position, yet may be more likely due to any number of reasons.A claim is strengthened, obviously, with rock solid empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence is at least admissible, but does not have the explanatory power that empirical evidence does.You can make any number of claims, but the claimant always needs to remember that the burden of proof ultimately lies with them.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

An atheist disbelieves in deities and an agnostic believes that they do not yet have the capacity to believe or deny the existence of deities.These are distinguishing terms, are they not? For if they weren't distinguished from one another, how can one be an "Agnostic Atheist" if they are completely synonymous? That would be a needless redundancy if it were not this way, seems to me.The point that RAZD is making, and I am in agreement, is that atheism lends itself to a hardnosed approach towards questions of divinity. Agnostics tend to be open-minded on the fact that one cannot positively prove a negative false. One cannot disprove something does not exist if it in fact does not exist. That would be inclusive of immaterial pink unicorns.Your goal here, no doubt, is to point to the absurdity of "immaterial pink unicorns" to prove a point. But it proves nothing, other than the fact that one cannot disprove the non-existence of something.What in your mind distinguishes agnostics from atheists?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

quote:

---

So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
  —RAZD

---

The absence of evidence being evidence of absence is a logical fallacy. Just because you have no immediate evidence of something does not necessarily mean that something did not occur or something does not exist, rather it could also mean that not enough evidence has been gathered to make a determination either way.That is what RAZD is saying. No one is saying that we should believe in all things equally because it might be true, however implausible it may seem. It simply denotes the difference between agnosticism and atheism.The manner in which people are speaking about atheism is that it is synonymous with agnosticism, and if it is, is it not redundant to refer to oneself as an "agnostic atheist" (which is a tautology) if they are the same thing?To be an atheist is to deny the supernatural, which is fine. Why is it not acceptable to neither confirm nor deny a belief in the supernatural until proof in either direction is established?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

quote:

---

Some people say god always was, and then created the universe. Why not save a step, and say the universe always has been, and requires neither a creator nor a beginning?
  —Carl Sagan

---

It is a good philosophical question pointing to an infinite regression, however, we know empirically that the universe indeed did have a beginning. That makes the question moot, but cannot automatically disqualify a god.What you can do with things pertaining to God is to debunk certain inconsistencies. For instance if someone makes a claim that Genesis is the accurate and infallible Word of God, you can debunk that which is logically inconsistent within the text and in essence bring in to disrepute the vailidity of such a God. That is wholly different because now we are dealing with specifics and specific claims. I'm not a theist nor an atheist. I am agnostic. Secondly, you are making an appeal to incredulity. However absurd something may sound on a personal level, it does not negate a claim in and of itself (see: argumentum ad absurdum). That's a faulty premise. But we aren't talking about what we do believe in, are we? We are not discussing belief or disbelief in God, but rather agnosticism which neither believes nor disbelieves. THAT is the most logically consistent answer for someone who can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of God.This is what RAZD is pointing out and I happen to agree.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Okay, so then there not being any ambiguous evidence that water exists on the moon therefore means that there is no water on the moon? You see, the premise does not follow and that's the point. There very well may have been water on the moon but ONLY that we didn't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. But does that negate the possibility? Obviously not. Surely you can see why you are declaring a logical fallacy. If we checked the moon for water and didn't find any, does that mean the moon doesn't have any water or that no evidence exists AS OF YET to suggest there is? If you can understand that simple illustration then you can understand why RAZD makes sense. Some people have claimed it outright. And there is evidence to suggest that.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Can you please expound on why it doesn't apply?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

No, a lack of evidence isn't positive evidence that something does not exist, which is what I'm trying to say. It just means there is no evidence in favor of their being water, but it obviously does not negate the possibility. So it is with God. What is irrational is stating that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is a faulty premise, as I've just illustrated. I agree, but that's not the same thing. The statement is saying that if you can't find evidence, then it is evidence that it's not their at all. But that is not necessarily the case. It may be there but have not yet discovered it. I mean, doesn't that go without saying? If you find the belief in God to be irrational and not based on anything credible, I certainly won't berrate you on that. Skepticism is a good thing. That's not really the argument though. The argument is whether or not the best answer applies to agnosticism versus (a)theism, since evidence refuting it lacks by the very nature of it.Obviously on some level we all understand that we can't "prove" a non-existent thing if it in fact does not exist. Of course. But it does not mean then it doesn't exist.There was no evidence to suggest water was on the moon at one time. Then there were theories based on scanty information. Then it was proven there is in fact water on the moon. But if we go by the logical fallacy of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence," it negates even the possibility simply because they had no reason to assume it. That is what is irrational.Had somebody said, "Oh, yes, there is water on the moon," it would be the same kind of logical fallacy, by insisting something based on no evidence. I am saying, and apparently RAZD as well, there is not enough information in either direction to make any kind of definitive claim.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams