If the government is able to punish people for asserting a belief that they can't prove, then they can certainly punish people for asserting that God does not exist, since no one has proven that belief to be true either. Now you may want to insist that it's been proven, but it would be up to the government, dominated by theists, to decide if you have. Or you may want to insist that atheists who deny the existence of God aren't really asserting a belief (I've heard that argued, though unpersuasively), but then the government, dominated by theists, would be in the position of saying "Nah, we disagree. You're asserting belief in the nonexistence of God, and you need to prove it, and you're in serious legal trouble until you do".

""Absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence"."

Oh Chopper. I provide a huge amount of reason why this is fallacious in that other tribe and you completely ignored all my arguments and links and just keep repeating that fallacy. Now, you seem to embrace this fallacy rather tenaciously in spite of any argument to the contrary. Even if you do, there's no reason why the government has to accept your position and reject the position of numerous authorities in science, statistics and logic who agree with me that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, as I pointed out in that Politics tribe but you ignored.

"Think about it this way -- if something truly does not exist, then there cannot be any evidence either FOR or AGAINST its existence."

Nonsense. First of all, square circles don't exist, and the evidence are the definitions of "square" and "circle". Second, there is no elephant in my bedroom right now, and the evidence is what can be observed by me right now. That's two things the nonexistence of which I have very good evidence. Finally, even if it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of something, it doesn't follow that lack of evidence for something entails that that something doesn't exist. Again, to cite an example I previously gave repeatedly to you that you as well ignored, the absence of evidence of intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe does not constitute evidence that such life forms don't exist.

"Think about it this way -- if something truly does not exist, then there cannot be any evidence either FOR or AGAINST its existence. The only possible evidence we could have for its nonexistence would be the absence of evidence for its existence."

I forgot to address the last part of your post. As I pointed out in the other tribe where you posted this as well, the above is self-contradictory. How can it simultaneously be the case that there can't be evidence against the existence of something at the same time something IS evidence for the nonexistence of soemthing, particularly when that evidence is supposed a lack of evidence. That's a double self contardiction: No evidence is evidence for something about which there cannot be evidence.

"So, if we repeatedly fail to find evidence for the existence of something, we strengthen the likelihood of its nonexistence."

Nope. Doesn't follow. People who have repeatedly failed to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life haven't strengthened the case that there is none.

"So it turns out that my argument is very much 'quite apt' & will hold up in court."

I'm sure that's not correct. I'm no lawyer, but if a prosecution tried to prove that a defendant was guilty of a crime solely by pointing out the lack of evidence that the defendant was innocent, I imagine the case would be thrown out, given that it's the prosecution's burden to prove thaqt the defendant is guilty.

"The presence of God is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence”

True

“and it is thus a rational and widely excepted line of reasoning to conclude that such a god does not exist"

No it's not, and you just saying so doesn't make it so

"There is a mass of data that refutes utterly the scriptural version regarding the age of the earth, the universe"

Well, a literal reading of the Bible yeah, but that fact doesn't contradict the possibility that there is a God who doesn't fit the literal reading of the Bile. You're making the mistake of assuming that the only possible God that can exist is the one described by literalist fundamentalist Christianity, which is an erroneous assumption, since there are plenty of other conceptions of God’s out there with different ideas about the relation of such a hypothesized God with the universe.

"the creation theory."

I don't know what you mean by the "creation theory", but if the "theory" in question is in its bare essence the idea that there was a sentient all-powerful being that created the physical universe, then in fact that hasn't been proven false, which is why I remain an agnostic.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. After several millenia theists have turned up NONE. "

Well, no persuasive evidence, and atheists who have asserted that God does not exist have produced no persuasive evidence for that claim either, but that doesn't constitute evidence that they’re wrong either. I've brought this point up before but again you choose to ignore it.

"One of the strongest arguments for atheism is in fact, the Bible."

The Bible can't be an argument for atheism since the God of the Bible is not the only possible God, even if conceivably one were able to prove that the God of the Bible, at least in some conceptions, doesn't exist.

"Agnosticism *IS* a fallacy?"

Since agnosticism is a lack of belief, it can’t be a fallacy since it presents no argument for a belief in anything. What IS a fallacy is your insistent claim in spite of numerous arguments to the contrary, that you refuse to address, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. THAT'S a fallacy.

"While it parades as a "moderate" option which is most "reasonable", it is little more than an example of the cult of compromise."

It's neither a "compromise" nor intended to be "moderate". It's a reflection of the fact that neither theists nor you atheists have provided persuasive evidence that either God exists or God does not exist. I was born an agnostic with no belief one way or another in the existence of God. I wasn't born into a "moderate" position or a "compromise". It's simply the position of not having a belief one way or another, and hence not knowing if there's a God or not.

"I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

Right, and if you claim that the theists are wrong and that there is no God, then it's your burden to prove it. It's as irrational for a theist to take a leap of faith to just believe in the existence of God for insufficient reason as it is for an atheist to take a leap of faith to believe that there isn't a God without sufficient reason. There's no rationality in making rationally unjustified leaps of faith simply to avoid the appearance of holding a "moderate" position.

"Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god question."

Well, some agnostics claim that we can have no knowledge of God's existence, but I take a more modest agnostic position. I don't say that we can have no knowledge, just that I don't. I haven’t seen sufficient reason to believe that God exists or doesn't exist, so until I do, I just don't know if God exists or doesn't exist. I believe I already pointed this out to you, but again you chose to ignore my points.

"But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand."

Well, agnostics who do this don't just discard them out of hand. They usually have some argument for believing that you can't have knowledge of such things. But again, I take the more modest position that it's not that I CAN'T have knowledge of God's existence, just that I DON'T. Hence, your argument here doesn't apply to agnostics like me. Again, no one has provided persuasive reason for me to believe that there is a God or isn't a God.

"Many such arguments are available in the atheist literature”

Yeas, but none of them work. None of them are any more persuasive than the arguments for God's existence. There are plenty of arguments in the theistic literature as well, but just having arguments doesn't make the arguments persuasive in either case.

"and it is disingenuous to deny them."

It may be disingenuous to deny their existence, but it's not disingenuous to deny their persuasiveness. As a matter of fact, none of the arguments in the atheistic literature against the existence of God are persuasive.

"Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we cannot claim it exists, or discuss it rationally."

You're right, it is self-contradictory to simultaneously claim that you cannot know anything about the God concept at the same time as you claim it exists or doesn't exist, but no agnostic says otherwise. By definition of an agnostic, no agnostic says that God exists or God doesn't exist, so he's not contradicting himself by saying that you can't know anything about God at the same time as making an affirmative claim about God's existence, since it's only theists, deists and atheists who make such affirmative claims. The agnostic just says "I don't know", and not knowing isn't a belief and hence can't be self-contradictory.

Now perhaps some people have claimed that you can't know anything about the concept of God, which would indeed contradict the making of any claim about God. But most agnostics that I know of, including me, don't claim that you can't know anything about the God concept. We just say that we have no reason to believe that the God concept describes anything real in reality, and hence don't know if such a thing exists, at the same time as saying that we have no reason to know if such a thing doesn't exist. So I have knowledge of the concept of God. I just don't know if it exists or not.

Compare it to ET. Let's use the label "ET" to describe the concept of extraterrestrial intelligent life forms that have mastered interstellar travel. I understand that concept. Do I have any evidence that's persuasive enough to lead me to believe such things exist? No. Do I have any evidence that's persuasive enough to lead me to believe such things don't exist? Nope. So do I believe that such things exist? No. I have no idea, and I don't know if they don't exist either. But I do understand and have knowledge about the concept of ET. Do I know what such beings would be like if they existed? I have no idea, but I still understand the basic concept.

Same with the God concept. I understand at least a rudimentary sense of God being an all powerful, superintelligent being that created the physical universe. OK, I get it. Is there persuasive evidence to lead me to conclude that such a thing exists or doesn't exist? No, so I don't know if it exists or doesn't exist.

So let me be crystal clear here. I'm not claiming to not have any knowledge at all about the God concept. I'm claiming to not have any knowledge at all as to whether such a things exists. Or to put it another way, I do not know whether the God-concept that I basically understand describes something that exists in reality.

"If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and rational discussion"

But agnostics like me do claim to know something about the concept of God: A proposed sentient, super powerful, super smart creator of the universe. I just don't know if it exists or not.

"Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must inevitably lead to strong-atheism."

That just doesn't logically follow.

"Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an undefined object."

You're not very clear here. If you mean that for something to exist it must have some kind of nature, then that's obviously true, but that has nothing to do with the agnostic position that I’m describing. As to your claim that there cannot be an undefined object, of course there can be. I'm sure there are plenty of objects in the universe that have yet to be discovered or even conceived of and hence yet to be defined. How this supposedly demonstrates contradiction in the non-belief of agnosticism is beyond me. You haven't made a persuasive argument by any stretch.

" Whatever exists in reality has attributes."

OK, this is true, but irrelevant to agnosticism.

" If we admit that we have no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to define it, then it cannot exist."

First off, again, I'm defending a brand of agnosticism that doesn't say that we can have no knowledge of the God concept, so this argument doesn't apply to me at all. I understand and have knowledge of the God concept. I just don't see sufficient reason to believe that it exists or not.

Second, you make an invalid inference. Even if we can't know anything about a particular concept, that doesn't mean it cannot exist. In fact, it's contradictory to say what you just said. If we cannot know anything about some concept, it makes no sense to say that it cannot exist. The only thing you can say is that you cannot know anything about it, which is a strong form of agnosticism.

So let me make that point clear again: Saying that we can't know anything about a concept at the same time as claiming that it cannot exist is elf-contradictory, since saying it cannot exist expresses some claimed knowledge about the concept.

So in short it's not the agnostic who is contradicting himself, since the agnostic makes no claim about God's existence. Rather it's you who are contradicting yourself for saying that lack of knowledge of the God concept entails that the God concept cannot exist. The fist part of that claim contradicts the second.

"Thus assuming agnosticism is true leads to a contradiction. "

Incorrect, and "agnosticism" is not a belief. It's a lack of belief. Non-beliefs cannot be contradictory.

By the way Chopper, I’ve answered your questions above. It doesn’t show good faith in wanting a discussion if you pose questions for others to answer and yet refuse to answer their questions. You’ve repeatedly declined to answer a question I’ve asked over and over again. So once more, since I respected your arguments enough to answer your questions and claims, please answer this question. If the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence as you insist, does the absence of evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial beings constitute evidence that such beings don’t exist in any of the trillions upon trillions of star systems that we’ve never studied close enough in order to determine if such beings exist?

Yes or no?