Why does agnosticism piss off atheists?

Today I consider myself an agnostic so I can't very well dogmatically insist on anything I say as absolute truth, but lets step out of the rationalistic true/false logic box for a moment. If we jump up a level of abstraction to the next epistemological plateau we can consider ideas of God as language games--ways of fitting words to our experience and manipulating them according to heuristic rules.

The authors of the Hebrew Bible spoke of God in the archetype of a jealous, vengeful creator, and father figure (monotheism)
The authors of the gospels spoke of God in the archetype of a forgiving, loving shepherd (trisected monotheism?)
Hindus and Greeks speak of Gods as supernatural beings with superhuman powers whose favor can be won by doing and saying the right things (polytheism)
Jefferson thought God created the world and then buggered off (deism)
Spinoza spoke of God as the totality of the universe (pantheism)
Einstein had a similar but even more esoteric view which people still argue over, but if I remember right he spoke rather metaphorically of God as the source of the laws of nature.

No being currently imaginable by me could possibly fit all these descriptions, as several of them attribute conflicting properties to god(s). But what do they have in common aside from using the word "god(s)?" It seems they all appeal to a sort of "ultimate explanation" behind the phenomena of experience. I can't tell anyone what God "is," but throughout the ages people have invoked the metaphor of God for nearly anything they don't understand or cannot predict: the existence of stuff, the weather, the tides, sickness and health, national prosperity, personal fortunes, morality, mystical experiences, and so forth. Looking at the human nervous system cognitively, historically, and cross-culturally, it seems to have a tendency to personify that which it does not understand, and it typically prefers a woefully inadequte explanation to no explanation at all. These tendencies play out in language games, and since everybody sees the conceptual landscape a little differently and defines terms differently, everybody feels like only they understand the issue correctly. Thus we get a communication jam.

I encourage anyone who thinks they know the answer to the God riddle (even those agnostics who have convinced themselves that no one can know the answer) to try a little cognitive experiment and consider ideas of God as sophisticated language games. See if you can entertain this meta-model for an hour, or a day before going back to the ordinary true/false logic game.

"It seems that you could substitute God for elephant here and reach the same conclusion about God."

Incorrect. I know the nature of an elephant (carbon based living organism of a specific species) and have seen a lot of them and based on this prior experience, invisible elephants are highly improbable, if not physically impossible (and elephants are physical entities). In contrast, the western idea of God is the idea of some being that created the physical universe and hence would be prior to the physical universe. I have zero experience with such proposed entities and hence have no prior database upon which to make probabilistic judgments about the nature of such an entity if one were to exist. Since this proposed entity by hypothesis created the physical universe, I have no basis for assuming that its nature would be bound by the constraints of nature normally applied to physical entities such as elephants. In short, I have no evidentiary basis to assume that if there was a god, I would be able to see it/him/her. That's not the case with elephants.

"The only reason you fail to do this is because you have been culturally conditioned to accept the notion that some kind of invisible, supernatural being exists."

Incorrect. I've just explained the difference above. And since I don't accept (but don't reject) the existence of such a supernatural entity, then it's also incorrect that culture has conditioned me to accept its existence.

"You keep saying that your agnostic conclusion is "justified by the evidence", but there is no evidence to suggest the the idea of God is a viable idea."

"You believe, with no evidence that the idea of God is a viable idea."

Well, I don't accept the existence of God because I don't see sufficient evidence nor reason for accepting such, and I don't accept the nonexistence of God because I don't see sufficient reason nor evidence for believing such. The burden of proof is on you guys (speaking of atheists who deny the existence of gods and theists who assert it) to provide the evidence to justify my belief one way or another. I don't need to provide evidence for holding an agnostic position, since my agnostic position says that there is insufficient evidence or reason for me to believe one way or another. Now I don't know what you mean by a "viable idea". If by that you mean a coherent idea, I don't see any reason to believe that the idea of a god is necessarily incoherent, and so if you believe that it is, the burden is on you to prove it.

"The atheist follows the evidence or lack thereof and concludes this is not a viable idea."

That doesn't logically follow. There is also a lack of evidence for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial beings somewhere out there in the universe, but it doesn't follow that the lack of evidence for their existence makes the idea "unviable".

"The atheist has no belief in God because there is no evidence."

Same with an agnostic like me. Yes, the lack of evidence justifies the position of having no belief in the existence of God. But the lack of evidence does not justify the position of having a belief that no God exists. If you assert and want someone to believe that no God exists, then you assume a burden to provide the evidence and prove the truth of such a belief, otherwise I have no reason to accept it.

"The agnostic believes in the possibility of God despite the lack of evidence."

Yes, it's possible so long as it isn't self-contradictory, and as far as I can see it's not. It does not follow that if there is a lack of evidence for some entity, then it is impossible for that entity to exist. If that were the case, then the lack of evidence 100 years ago for the existence of protons justified the conclusion that it was not possible for such entities to exist, which would of course have been incorrect. And once again the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does not logically entail that the existence of such beings is impossible. Lack of evidence for the existence of some entity, or for that matter the truth of some proposition, does not logically entail that the entity does not exist or that the proposition is false. If it did, then for any possible entity about which we have no evidence for or against its existence (e.g. intelligent extraterrestrial beings), it would be justifiable to conclude that such beings both don't exist (because of lack of evidence for their existence) and do exist (because of lack of evidence for their nonexistence). But any argument that produces self-contradictory conclusions based on consistent premises is an irrational argument.

"Also, the agnostic claim that we cannot know enough to draw a conclusion about the subject of God, is simply another belief, also without any evidence."

No it's not. It's a lack of belief. I have no belief one way or another about God's existence since I see no sufficient evidence to believe one way or another. I don't need evidence for a non-belief. I was born an agnostic (not having a belief one way or another) so that's my default position until someone gives me sufficient reason to believe one way or another. I don't conclude that "we" don't have sufficient evidence for the existence of God. I'm more modest than that. Maybe someone out there personally has access to proof of God's existence or nonexistence, but I haven't met that person yet. Until I do, and no one has provided sufficient evidence one way or another, then I will reside in my default position of not having a belief one way or another as to whether a god or gods exists. I just don't know. Agnosticism.

"the God of modern theists would seem to have no observable effects in our world and therefore there is no reason to even put forth this theory- it explains nothing."

I still don't understand. Again, the God of modern theists is put forward to explain the existence of the physical universe, and perhaps other things. That they don't have sufficient evidence to prove that their explanation is superior to a naturalistic one just shows that they haven't proven that their God exists, but there is a set of phenomena that their God hypothesis is there to explain, such as the existence of the physical universe, as well as human beings, etc.

"To say the universe is an observed effect is not quite true because non-existence, in my estimation, is not possible. "

I don't see why, and I particularly don't see why it was impossible for the universe in its present form to not exist, with intelligent life forms such as us, etc.

"This is true even if we postulate a God because how could God exist if there was no universe in which to exist?"

Well, that depends on what you mean by "universe" and "God". Often people mean "universe" to refer to the physical universe of matter and energy that physicists study. If there was a being that created this universe of matter and energy then it would be hard to imagine that that being was a part of that universe of matter and energy, otherwise it would be creating itself, which at least seems incoherent at first blush. But I don't see anything incoherent about the idea that there was a sentient entity, or for that matter nonsentient force, external or prior to our universe of matter and energy that caused our universe of matter and energy to exist.

Now if by "universe" one means everything that exists, then by that definition God, if such a being existed, would be a part of the universe, and in THAT case it wouldn't make much sense to say that there is a God that created the universe. But I think when people mean that there is a God who created the universe, they mean "universe" in the previous sense above. Now there might be a temptation to try to disprove the existence of God by assuming that the universe is everything that exists PLUS the universe is just the totality of matter and energy and so-called "natural" processes studied by science. But that would beg the question since it would just be assuming that supernatural entities didn't exist.

"Something cannot come from nothing."

Don't know if that's a logically necessary principle. I don't see why spontaneous generation is logically impossible, and there is some work in physics that does suggest that at least some particles just come into existence from nothing, and perhaps even the universe did as well, but really neither has been proven yet.

"The theists propose our something came from God. It is simpler to assume our something has always existed as it is, or perhaps had some other form and changed via a natural process, rather than to invoke some supernatural cause- there is no need for this"

I'm not sure if that would be simpler or not, since for me to know which was simpler I would have to have some degree of precise knowledge about the mechanics of our present physical universe coming into existence via some natural processes vs. via some God, otherwise I have no idea as to which mechanism is simpler. One or the other could be much more complex than the other.

Second, since you seem to be alluding to Occam's Razor here, I don't know if it's legitimate to apply Occam's Razor to explanations of the universe as a whole. Yeah, it seems to be a useful principle in addressing proposed explanations of phenomena WITHIN the universe, but I don't know if it's legitimate to apply the principle to the universe as a whole. What is true of the part (e.g. of the universe) is not necessarily true of the whole (of the universe). This analysis is just as applicable to the classic theistic argument that since everything in the universe has a cause, then the universe itself has a cause. That's a similar fallacy. The Principle of Sufficient Causation (everything needs a cause) and Occam's Razor may be generally useful principles to apply to phenomena within the universe, but I don't see why it's necessary to apply it to the universe as a whole. As Hume pointed out as an analogy, that every individual human has one mother doesn't justify the conclusion that humankind as a whole has one mother.

"So any way you look at it the universe cannot be considered "an observed effect"- an effect requiring some explanation."

Well, I'm assuming the dominant view of physics to be true that there was something like a "Big Bang" that began our physical universe. I'm also assuming that there was no necessary reason to believe that an earth like our own with intelligent beings like ourselves had to exist. Hence, to these phenomena that didn't seem to be necessary, the theist posits his God as creator for explanatory purposes.

"Imagine something right now, something you and no one else has ever seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt. What are the odds this something really exists?"

You mean like protons, or Velociraptors, or extraterrestrial life forms? And I think it's highly improbable that we would have conveniently evolved to have senses capable of experiencing everything that exists, since our evolved faculties would seem to be only necessary for perceiving things that are useful for our survival, and I don't see any necessary reason to believe that everything that exists is necessary for us to perceive for our survival.

The odds you speak of depend on the context and background information. I have zero background knowledge of the nature of supernatural beings if such things do or ever did exist, and hence I have zero basis by which to assess if such things presently do or do not exist. There might be dimensions with entities I don't know about or am incapable of accessing given my physical nature, but that doesn't mean that such things probably don't exist. In contrast, I know what an elephant is, and know by its nature that if one existed in my garage, I would with high probability be able to see it if I walked into my garage (it's a very small garage).

"I feel certain that you would conclude that any of these things you just imagined which might be infinite in number "probably don't exist""

Incorrect. If it's possible, it's possible. It only becomes improbable (or for that matter probable) when sufficient evidence is discovered by which to assess probability. Without such evidence, it's irrational to conclude that such entities are either probable or improbable. Rene, we have only explored a tiny fragment of the universe, even if we restrict ourselves to the physical universe (i.e. what physicists study). We have no evidence one way or another about most things that exist in our universe of a billion galaxies each of which has hundreds of millions of stars. But it's not a logical inference to conclude that until we have evidence about something that may be out there. it probably doesn't exist.

"I assumed you might get this without further detailed explanation, but since you did not, I will explain further. Let us first define God as a wise and benevolent creator, since this appears to be the most common perception of God. Man is supposedly his finest creation. If you simply open your eyes you will see that God's finest creation is riddled with flaws. Why an appendix? Why have teeth that easily rot? Why not a more efficient waste disposal system? Why sickness? and on and on... I could do a better job of designing my "finest creation" on a bad day"

This is why I asked if there was a new argument out there, because I've heard the above argument and numerous variations of it. First of all, on issues like the appendix, I'm not aware of any major religion that ever claimed that man (at least in his present form) was created as a physically perfect or optimally engineered being, so you appear to be attacking a straw man. And even if there was such a religion, that certainly doesn't foreclose the idea that that specific religion is wrong but that there still is a God who created humans to simply be well adapted enough to survive and reproduce and dominate the world (or do whatever one's theology requires), which doesn't require engineering perfection.

Now as to the larger "Problem of Evil" approach that says that if God is all-good, then why would he create a universe that has suffering/evil. The problem with this argument is that it assumes to know what the moral obligations of such a god would be if one were to exist. As I've said, I have no prior knowledge nor experience with or of such supernatural entities if such entities do or ever did exist (as to their nature nor existence), and I'm certainly in no position to entertain how such beings should morally behave if they did exist.

In short, if there was God who some religion called "all good", would such a being allow suffering/evil, or for that matter teeth that rot or appendices? I don't know, and I have no reason to know one way or another. Maybe such a being would have his reasons for allowing or having such things that are consistent with how that religion views their God's moral obligations to be. The only way that I can see such an argument working is if you could point out in such a religion the precise moral obligations of their God and demonstrate that their God, if it existed, violated such moral obligations, but I've never seen such an attempted argument succeed, at least not vis a vis the big world religions.

In short, I see no reason to believe that if a God existed, he would make a perfectly engineered human being (assuming that the "imperfections" we note are really imperfect in the sense of being contrary to the alleged creator's purposes), or for that matter remove suffering, evil or imperfection from our world.

"No matter how you stack it up, the evil in the world precludes a benevolent God."

Ah, there you go. No it doesn’t. The Problem of Evil. See above. First of all, if a God exists, I don't see any reason why such a being would necessarily be maximally benevolent to all creatures, even the human ones (doesn't the Bible describe God as a vengeful God, which doesn't sound omnibenevolent to me), and I frankly don't see that necessity in the major world conceptions of God (Islam, Judaism or Christianity).

Second, again, I see no evidence as to whether or not a God exists, nor of what such a being's probable nature would be if it/he/she did exist. With that, I CERTAINLY see no evidence by which to judge whether or not that being, if it existed, is being "morally perfect”, consistent with whatever moral obligations such a being would have.

It’s hard enough to prove the moral obligations humans have to one another, much less the moral obligations of a hypothetical god about which we have no experience. We don’t have a basis on which to say, “Well, most gods I know of have such and such moral obligations that would preclude allowing suffering/evil, and hence if a god existed, he would likely disallow the suffering/evil that we know exists in the world”.

So in short, yes I'm familiar with the Problem of Evil/Suffering (aka the Argument from Evil or the Argument from Suffering). It's the most famous atheistic argument against the existence of God. It's unfortunately not a sound argument (not just my opinion - most academic philosophers acknowledge it's not sound – not trying to appeal to authority, but just to acknowledge the argument’s status in the academic literature), since there's no reason to assume that if an all-good God existed, it would eliminate all evil or suffering, or for that matter any suffering/evil that actually exists.

"If there were a God controlling our lives then our lives would have no meaning because we would be no different than wooden puppets being pulled around in a silly play by a silly God."

Well, that doesn't follow for a couple of reasons. Even if we are wooden puppets being pulled along by the strings (as Islam would have it), the meaning of life would be that we are wooden puppets pulled along by the string. It may not be meaning that you or I would like, but it would be meaning.

Second, however, it doesn't follow that if there was a God, that he would be manipulating us in such a way, particularly when the main Jewish and Christian traditions have God existing consistent with humans having the free will to make moral decisions, etc. I don't see any reason why the existence of God is necessarily incompatible with humans having free will (and yes, I'm familiar with the Foreknowledge Problem, which also doesn't work).

"Being alive means being free to create your own destiny."

Well, that would be ideal to me, but I don't see why that's the meaning of "alive." And even though not being free wouldn't be a pleasant state of affairs, merely being an unpleasant reality would not make it false.

But by the way, your problem here would seem to entail that even if there was no god and yet we were determined by natural forces to do what we do (physical determinism), then life would have no meaning and we wouldn't be "alive". This seems to reflect more discomfort with determinism than a problem with the idea of a God, and again, I don't see any reason why the concept of God necessitates determinism.