Saturday, July 6, 2013


"Gods Do Not Exist"

Liking the a-theist definition is one thing. Arguing that it's so logical, that it should make perfect sense to anyone, is quite another. What do a-theists call someone who does not believe the statement, "gods do not exist", is true?


That's right, nothing. There is no label for not believing that statement is true, using a-theism's labelling system.

Here is the a-theist at the no belief position labelling:

"Knows" no gods exist = Gnostic strong a-theist
Believes no gods exist = Agnostic strong a-theist
Doesn't believe the strong atheist claim = Agnostic (no belief label)
Doesn't believe the theist claim = Agnostic weak a-theist
Believes gods exist = Agnostic theist
"Knows" gods exist = Gnostic theist

The two middle positions get mashed together under "atheist", so that the middle is atheistic to "no gods" as well as "gods".

Knowledge, being a justified true belief, is generally explained backwards, from the position of having already attained knowledge: 3. justified true belief; 2. true belief; 1. no belief, about something as yet undiscovered, that is true. Working backwards, the truth aspect is a requirement to reach knowledge, and is omnipresent. Something is eternally true. We just need to discover it, believe it’s true, and prove it’s true.

However, when working forward, in an attempt to discover and attain knowledge, we start with no belief and have no idea yet if the next step we’re making is actually true, or not. The scientist in Huxley would have scientific method, using objective evidence, be applied to the forward steps:

1. no belief (as of yet about a new hypothesis, that is presented, along with supporting evidence)
2. justified belief (the hypothesis that has passed a justification phase, and become theory)
3. justified true belief (a theory that has been tested enough, by enough people, to be considered a consensus, and treated as truth/gnosis/knowledge).

Working forward, we actually resolve the "truth" of a proposition last. The "scientist" remains objective, neutral, agnostic, not forming a belief towards an hypothesis, until some kind of objective evidence is given and weighed, is withholding belief.

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley

In this way, Huxley's agnosticism is not compatible with the(os)-ism or athe(os)-ism, and does address belief.

Here is the agnostic at the no belief position labelling:

"Knows" no gods exist = Atheo(s)-gnostic
Believes no gods exist = Athe(os)-ist
Doesn't believe the atheist or theist claims = Agnostic
Believes gods exist = The(os)-ist
"Knows" gods exist = Theo(s)-gnostic

The middle "agnostic" label covers no belief to either proposition.

Not only does the a-theist labelling system get convoluted with 14+ words to describe exactly what the athe(os)-ist labelling system can describe in 5, but their labelling system is incomplete, as there is no belief label for no belief to strong a-theism, or athe-ism. They're trying to assign labels to answers, rather than positions after the answers. See: BINARY BULLSHIT.

The agnostic considers anyone continuing towards belief or "knowledge", without adequate evidence, is doing so subjectively. Without evidence, they have subjective degrees of certainty. Karl Popper was also a self-described agnostic. He helped incorporate demarcation and falsifiability into the scientific method. No evidence = untestable and unfalsifiable = unscientific and inconclusive. Inconclusive = no belief as to the truth of the proposition.