You have it all mixed up, and I do think it is important to understand the correct terminology when you wish to discuss such topics. Atheist=does not believe that gods exist ("a-"=without, not "theist"=believer of theism) Agnostic=does not know if gods exist ("a-"=without, not "gnostic"=from Greek gnōstos ‘known’, related to (esoteric) knowledge) Anti theist=rejects the claim that gods exist ("anti"=against, opposing to "theist"=believer of theism) Using your jar of marbles example, atheists say: "I don't think there is an even number of marbles in the jar, but I can't falsify it beyond doubt either", and agnostics say: "I honestly haven't the foggiest idea if it's an even or odd number of marbles in the jar". But while it is quite simple to find out the truth about a jar of marbles, the attributes of gods make them un-falsifiable by default: by religious beliefs, they are beyond the capacity of human senses or scientific measurements, and they're supposed to exist outside of time and space. So let me illustrate it with Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy: it is impossible to prove that there isn't a tiny teapot, orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, that's too small to be seen with our telescopes - but I hope you'll agree that we should be free to not believe in its existence, even without definitive proof. Or do you insist that all humankind must keep believing in the teapot until we officially searched every last cubic inch of space between the Mars and Earth? So, neither atheists, nor agnostics make a truth claim that needs to be proven, only anti theists have burden of proof, since they say that they have seen enough evidence to be sure that no gods exist. And actually, the few anti theists I know of are more than happy to support this claim with heaps of evidence, but religious people are not any more inclined to accept them than atheists are to agree with apologetic arguments. C'est la vie.
Thanks for your comment. Thanks also for proving my point that agnostics and atheists are two different (mutually exclusive) categories, i.e. the concept of “agnostic atheist” is contradictory. Regarding the burden of proof (which was not the main topic of my vid though), I totally agree with the analogy proposed by Bertrand Russell: nobody should be asked to provide proof for not believing in something unreasonable and unsupportable (like a tine teapot orbiting the sun). However, if I say I don’t believe in something totally reasonable and supportable (even though not provable definitively), then I do bear the burden of explaining the reasons for my disbelief. And if I don’t want to do it (sure I can), everyone else will have the right not to take me seriously.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 _"my point that agnostics and atheists are two different (mutually exclusive) categories"_ How can you be so wilfully obtuse? It is obvious that one can very well not have knowledge AND *therefore* at the same time develop an idea of what one believes to be true. E.g. I know nothing about the actual existence of the Yeti, but do not believe it to be true due to a lack of arguments.
@@rhett_rydinhood you are talking about two different stages of knowledge that cannot exist at the same time. A priori, before considering anything, everyone is agnostic. Later, by considering things, you may “develop” your own conclusions: you may move from no knowledge at all (agnostic) to a certain degree of knowledge (not agnostic anymore). This is why agnostics (“haven’t the foggiest idea”) and atheists (“I’m pretty sure even though I can’t prove it) are not compatible ideas.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 You make up your own definitions so that a discussion must be unfruitful: There is no "degree of knowledge". Either you only have evidence to believe or disbelieve something, or you have solid proof of the truth or falsity of a statement. Agnostic atheists say: "I don't know if there are gods, but I'm not convinced of their existence."
@@rhett_rydinhood of course there is. If you have evidence to believe, you, by definition, have a certain degree of knowledge. The more evidence you have, the closer you are to “perfect” knowledge.
By virtue of the fact that all evidence for the non existence of a hypothetical god must by necessity be circumstantial, yes. Agnostic Atheists do not only exist, it is the only type of atheist that exists. We are all agnostic on the subject.
Maybe spend more time worrying about accurately representing the position instead of semantics. The obvious answer is that the agnostic atheist is not using the words in the same way you are.
The words I’m using in this vid are the ones I heard multiple times talking to self proclaimed “agnostic atheists.” But it’s fine, words are just words. Please, tell me what you mean by “atheist” and by “agnostic” and we can go from there.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 when I see the phrase "agnostic atheist," I see that they are clarifying their belief position and their knowledge position. They are addressing the topic in two different categories.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Is it possible for me to believe that Duke will win March Madness without knowing that they will? Is it possible for me to believe that Duke won't win March Madness without knowing that they will not win? If the answer is "yes" to either question, you have recognized a difference between belief claims and knowledge claims, which is all agnostic atheists are pointing out.
@@lhvinny thanks for this example. I see where the confusion is: thinking that agnosticism means not knowing something with 100% accuracy. If that is so, we are all pretty much agnostic about everything (other than probably math theorems), which makes the concept of agnosticism pretty much meaningless. The truth is, when we talk about God, the concept of knowledge with 100% accuracy is out of the window: there’s no way to prove or disprove the existence of God definitively the same way you prove or disprove a math theorem. So if that’s the case, the concept of agnosticism in relation to God is meaningless: everyone, both theists and atheists, may claim to be agnostic. But this is of course not the point of contention. As I explained, the concept of “agnostic atheists” is just a cheap trick to avoid having to explain your own reasons for not believing. A theist may use exactly the same argument to get the burden of proof out of his shoulders: “I don’t believe the claim the God does not exists”. And since I’m not making any positive claim, but just “not accepting” a claim, the burden of proof is not on me. I’m an agnostic theist! I hope you’d agree with me that that would sound silly.
You have it all mixed up, and I do think it is important to understand the correct terminology when you wish to discuss such topics.
Atheist=does not believe that gods exist ("a-"=without, not "theist"=believer of theism)
Agnostic=does not know if gods exist ("a-"=without, not "gnostic"=from Greek gnōstos ‘known’, related to (esoteric) knowledge)
Anti theist=rejects the claim that gods exist ("anti"=against, opposing to "theist"=believer of theism)
Using your jar of marbles example, atheists say: "I don't think there is an even number of marbles in the jar, but I can't falsify it beyond doubt either", and agnostics say: "I honestly haven't the foggiest idea if it's an even or odd number of marbles in the jar". But while it is quite simple to find out the truth about a jar of marbles, the attributes of gods make them un-falsifiable by default: by religious beliefs, they are beyond the capacity of human senses or scientific measurements, and they're supposed to exist outside of time and space. So let me illustrate it with Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy: it is impossible to prove that there isn't a tiny teapot, orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, that's too small to be seen with our telescopes - but I hope you'll agree that we should be free to not believe in its existence, even without definitive proof. Or do you insist that all humankind must keep believing in the teapot until we officially searched every last cubic inch of space between the Mars and Earth?
So, neither atheists, nor agnostics make a truth claim that needs to be proven, only anti theists have burden of proof, since they say that they have seen enough evidence to be sure that no gods exist. And actually, the few anti theists I know of are more than happy to support this claim with heaps of evidence, but religious people are not any more inclined to accept them than atheists are to agree with apologetic arguments. C'est la vie.
Thanks for your comment. Thanks also for proving my point that agnostics and atheists are two different (mutually exclusive) categories, i.e. the concept of “agnostic atheist” is contradictory.
Regarding the burden of proof (which was not the main topic of my vid though), I totally agree with the analogy proposed by Bertrand Russell: nobody should be asked to provide proof for not believing in something unreasonable and unsupportable (like a tine teapot orbiting the sun).
However, if I say I don’t believe in something totally reasonable and supportable (even though not provable definitively), then I do bear the burden of explaining the reasons for my disbelief.
And if I don’t want to do it (sure I can), everyone else will have the right not to take me seriously.
@@thejerichoconnection3473
_"my point that agnostics and atheists are two different (mutually exclusive) categories"_
How can you be so wilfully obtuse? It is obvious that one can very well not have knowledge
AND *therefore* at the same time develop an idea of what one believes to be true.
E.g. I know nothing about the actual existence of the Yeti, but do not believe it to be true
due to a lack of arguments.
@@rhett_rydinhood you are talking about two different stages of knowledge that cannot exist at the same time.
A priori, before considering anything, everyone is agnostic. Later, by considering things, you may “develop” your own conclusions: you may move from no knowledge at all (agnostic) to a certain degree of knowledge (not agnostic anymore).
This is why agnostics (“haven’t the foggiest idea”) and atheists (“I’m pretty sure even though I can’t prove it) are not compatible ideas.
@@thejerichoconnection3473
You make up your own definitions so that a discussion must be unfruitful:
There is no "degree of knowledge". Either you only have evidence to believe
or disbelieve something, or you have solid proof of the truth or falsity of a
statement. Agnostic atheists say: "I don't know if there are gods, but I'm not
convinced of their existence."
@@rhett_rydinhood of course there is. If you have evidence to believe, you, by definition, have a certain degree of knowledge. The more evidence you have, the closer you are to “perfect” knowledge.
By virtue of the fact that all evidence for the non existence of a hypothetical god must by necessity be circumstantial, yes. Agnostic Atheists do not only exist, it is the only type of atheist that exists. We are all agnostic on the subject.
Maybe spend more time worrying about accurately representing the position instead of semantics.
The obvious answer is that the agnostic atheist is not using the words in the same way you are.
The words I’m using in this vid are the ones I heard multiple times talking to self proclaimed “agnostic atheists.”
But it’s fine, words are just words. Please, tell me what you mean by “atheist” and by “agnostic” and we can go from there.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 when I see the phrase "agnostic atheist," I see that they are clarifying their belief position and their knowledge position. They are addressing the topic in two different categories.
@@lhvinny that, I argue, are generally mutually exclusive. But please clarify exactly what you mean by those terms and we can move from there.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Is it possible for me to believe that Duke will win March Madness without knowing that they will?
Is it possible for me to believe that Duke won't win March Madness without knowing that they will not win?
If the answer is "yes" to either question, you have recognized a difference between belief claims and knowledge claims, which is all agnostic atheists are pointing out.
@@lhvinny thanks for this example. I see where the confusion is: thinking that agnosticism means not knowing something with 100% accuracy. If that is so, we are all pretty much agnostic about everything (other than probably math theorems), which makes the concept of agnosticism pretty much meaningless.
The truth is, when we talk about God, the concept of knowledge with 100% accuracy is out of the window: there’s no way to prove or disprove the existence of God definitively the same way you prove or disprove a math theorem. So if that’s the case, the concept of agnosticism in relation to God is meaningless: everyone, both theists and atheists, may claim to be agnostic.
But this is of course not the point of contention. As I explained, the concept of “agnostic atheists” is just a cheap trick to avoid having to explain your own reasons for not believing.
A theist may use exactly the same argument to get the burden of proof out of his shoulders: “I don’t believe the claim the God does not exists”. And since I’m not making any positive claim, but just “not accepting” a claim, the burden of proof is not on me. I’m an agnostic theist!
I hope you’d agree with me that that would sound silly.