Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[popeye1945]

Knowable involves experience where there is no experience of, it is said to be unknown. Where there is no evidence for a claim it cannot claim credibility, is not known and therefore is the unknown.

[uwot]

...what is unknowable...

Interesting.

How do you know "what is unknowable"?

Anyone who understands philosophy knows what is unknowable - everything other than that experience exists, tautologies and equations is unknowable.

You might say, "I personally don't know if there is a God." That would be fair.

It would be accurate, and it applies to you.

How would you know that "Whether there is a God or not is unknowable?"

Mr Can, if it has never occurred to you that you might be mental, you are definitely mental.

[attofishpi]

Not sure what I know then

[Immanuel Can]

...where there is no experience of, it is said to be unknown...

How did you come to the conclusion that nobody has an "experience" (as you put it) of God?

[popeye1945]

Immanuel,

Yes, I know people claim to experience gods but there is no real evidence that they are not just nut jobs. The legion of all the failed gods of history tends to give one doubts. Personally, I have little respect for the desert religions myself, I don't really consider them spiritual it is more about belonging. I have old friends who turned born again, there is nothing in the way of intellect or critical thinking involved in their transformation again difficult to respect this. The best and only policy is to avoid meaningful dialogue.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I know people claim to experience gods...

They do. But that is not the question.

The question is how you know they can't.

[popeye1945]

Like the question of the spaghetti monster itself those who claim to know the spaghetti monster and those that say they know it doesn't exist are committing the same logic fallacy. They would both be correct to say, there is a great mystery.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, actually. Dawkins himself says, in the same video, that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that. Want the video to prove it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4&t=31s

In the video he admitted his view is agnostic; BUT he denied it is 50/50 agnosticism but rather 6.9/7.0 which is highly improbable.

That's the point. He's denying he's an Atheist. He knows it's irrational. And "Atheist" by definition, has to believe that the existence of God has no probability at all. Agnostics come in a range, from high to low estimation of probability. But they admit their ignorance...which is the literal meaning of "agnostic" : it means "not + know."

I listened to the video again and noted,
Dawkins never said "that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that"
when one of the participant mentioned 'you are described as the world most famous atheist' Dawkins rejected that and stated "not by me".
Dawkins NEVER stated that " Atheism is simply not rational," you are being deceptive [a sin] again.

As I had mentioned many times, Dawkins as a scientist is restraint by the imperative conditions of the scientific framework and system that a scientist cannot make any claim with 100% certainty even with the best available evidence [scientific]. Thus he has no choice but to be a agnostic, in this case he is a 6.9/7.0 agnostic that God is not probable.
I would read his intention to rate himself at 6.99999999999999/7.0

I have always claim myself to be 'not-a-theist' or a non-theist.

That's weak. If you think about it, you'll realize it makes your position only private.

If all one is is a "non-theist" by probability, then it means that all one is saying is "I think, and it seems probable to me, that there's no God." And it's weak in two ways: one is that one can be asked for your evidence for one's non-belief, and secondly, the fact that one makes one kind of probability estimate has no implications to suggest anybody else has to regard that as correct or true.

It might well be true some individual knows of no God; I have no doubt that's the case. But it doesn't even remotely suggest nobody else can.

But an Atheist wants more. He wants to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either." If he says less, then he's weak, too...maybe his ignorance of God is real, but it doesn't mean anybody else's has to be ignorant of God. If he says what he wants to say, though, he's going to get called for his evidence...which Dawkins and others do not have, so they don't want to be called "Atheists."

All this is very obvious, if you think it through.

You are strawmaning.

What I meant is this;
A theist is one who believe there is a God or gods.
The terms atheist, not-a-theist, non-theist are literally synonymous and represent those who do not have such a belief of theism in general.
Therefrom what is non-theism is presented in many form in their respective context.

So, what is private is you have to find out, ask the other person what his form of stance toward the idea of a God.
YOU don't have the authority to insist and impose your interpretation on others.

I have explained above why Dawkins [in his approach as a scientist] do not accept atheism which I believe he meant 'strong' atheism.

Wiki is wrong (as it frequently is: it's not an academic source, but an "open source"). There is no range in Atheism: if there is any kind of God or gods, Atheism is wrong. That's why agnosticism is their fall back position, as it is with Dawkins. Agnosticism has probabilities built in: Atheism admits of no degrees.

Yes, WIKI is not the most reliable, but with WIKI one must always note the references provided for each claim which is available in that article.
WHO ARE YOU to insists "Atheism" admits of no degrees.

The point is many theists in being insecure had simply brand any one is not-a-believer as an "atheist" since the 5th century BCE and atheism was only a popular term in the 16th century.

• The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".
  In antiquity, it [the atheists] had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society,[13] those who were forsaken by the gods, or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Note there is a difference between the label 'atheists' thrown at people by theists and atheism which is ideological thus having a certain type of anti-God beliefs.
Since the term 'atheist' and 'atheism' are such loose terms those people branded therein must be differentiated in term of the different contexts they stand on.

I don't like the pejorative origin of 'atheism' so I prefer either the synonymous "not-a-theist", "non-theist". What is wrong with that as long as I qualify the meaning and context.

Agnosticism is also loosely branded pejoratively as atheists, that is why people like Dawkins has to explain his position is 6.9/700 in not believing God exists.

There are degrees to 'atheism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#P ... ._negative
To deny that is due to ignorance and unintelligent in this respect.

I don't think Dawkins is so irrational to attempt to prove a negative as in the case of theism.

Well, he plays both sides on that one. He has to.

When nobody's interrogating him, he allows himself to be called an "Atheist." When he's being pushed, he falls back to "firm agnosticism," just as the video so clearly shows. He wants the strength of the Atheist position, because he knows agnosticism has no implications for other people; but he doesn't want to have to "pay the toll" of having to produce evidence to warrant Atheism, so he slides back to an agnostic retreat.

Whatever other may call him, his official stance is what he had written in the 'God Delusion' and his explanation of his agnosticism in the video you linked. [listen to it again at this specific time in the video]
https://youtu.be/dfk7tW429E4?t=63

But the fact is Flew only turned to deism [not theism btw] when he was nearly in his 80 where by then most of the neurons of his rational brain would have atrophized.

You're totally wrong. Go and read his book, and you'll realize his mind was just fine. In fact, he was writing for PN until just shortly before his death. So unless you think the PN editors are idiots, you'd have to realize that Flew had all his marbles. Not everybody suffers dementia, you know.

Point is you are ignorant of the psychology involved in this case.
The brain and mind are build upon necessary independent modular functions so that they can be combined for different purposes.
For example, there are many intelligent serial killers and murderer because their moral functions was weak or damaged due to psychopathy, etc.
As such Flew may still retain other intellectual functions during his 80s but those specific inhibitors of rationality that resist against the primal existential drives had weakened due to old age as evident from research done.
As such Flew was subliminally drag into clinging/clutching to deism to soothe the terrible pulsating cognitive dissonances arising from the inherent primal existential crisis.

So you think.
I cannot help it if you choose to assume that. You are free to be wrong.

Note my argument.
You did not counter it rationally at all.

It wasn't an "argument." It was just an allegation without proof. So it doesn't need to be addressed. [/quote]
It is the principle of basic logic, i.e. if the syllogism is valid, then the conclusion will follow from the minor and major premises.
My major premises is all scientific facts are polished conjectures, i.e. polished hypothesis since all scientific justification within the scientific FSK must start from a hypothesis and supported with empirical evidence therefrom.
Since the above is very rational, what is your counter for it.

I have downloaded the book and noted,
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe pg 202
Robin Collins
I will have a look at it.

What about the Blackwell Guide? It's a much better source, and will give you a fair representation of the argument.

I noted you have thrown that book at me before without presenting a summary of what it is about.
The relevant chapter,
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe pg 202
Robin Collins
is Chapter 4 pg 202 of that book,
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

Since you have thrown the book at me, you should have at least present a summary to justify your position.

I have read that chapter and there is nothing substantial [just mere probability] to justify God exists as real.
Show me where is the proof God exists from the extracted the Main Sections and sub-sections.

1. Introduction: Setting Up the Argument
1.1. Nature of project and summary of sections
1.2. Some key definitions, terminologies, and abbreviations
1.3. The basic argument presented: likelihood approach
1.4. Alternative version of argument: method of probabilistic tension
2. The Evidence for Fine-Tuning
2.1. Introduction.
2.2. Laws of nature
2.3. Constants of physics
2.3.1. Introduction
2.3.2. Fine-Tuning of gravity
2.3.3. The cosmological constant
2.4. Initial conditions of the universe
2.5.1. Stenger’s “Monkey God” objection
2.5.2. Stenger’s “God of the gaps” objection
3. Epistemic Probability
3.1. The need for epistemic probability
According to atheist Keith Parsons:
3.2. An account of epistemic probability
3.3. Determining epistemic probability
3.3.1. Introduction
3.3.2. Restricted Principle of Indifference
3.3.3. Natural variable assumption
4. Determining k¢ and the Comparison Range
4.1. Introduction
4.2. What it means to vary a constant of physics
4.3. Determining k′: old evidence problem
4.4. Determining k′: the EI region
4.5. Examples of the EI region
4.6. Purported problem of infinite ranges
5. Justifying Premises (1) and (2)
5.1. Justifying premise (1)
5.1.1. Combining constants
6. The Multiverse Hypothesis
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Critique of the unrestricted multiverse
6.3. The inflationary-superstring multiverse explained and criticized
6.3.1. Inflationary-superstring multiverse requires right laws
6.3.2. Low-entropy problems for inflationary cosmology
6.3.3. Albrecht’s “dominant channel” response
6.3.4. A BB objection to the inflationary multiverse
6.3.5. Conclusion
7. Miscellaneous Objections
7.1. The “who designed God?” objection
7.2. The more fundamental law objection
7.3. Other life-permitting laws objection
7.4. Other forms of life objection
7.5. Weak Anthropic Principle objection
8. Conclusion: Putting the Argument in Perspective
# References

[Atla]

I do. It's they who struggle with it.

For reasons I've outlined in my previous messages, they want to both say, "There's no God," AND to say "I'm only saying I don't know." But those are incommensurable statements -- if they "don't know," then they can't say "God's a delusion."

So what they need is to clear up their own double-speak, and say what it is they really stand for.

What does Atheism really mean? I can answer that: if it means both of their favourite claims, it means incoherence.

So I know: but do they?

Yep, surely atheists couldn't resolve an apparent inconsistency, it's too much for them.

I'm fine if there's a way they can.

I've just never seen it, and can't imagine how they'd do it.

So maybe you're right.

Yeah no atheist has ever developed beyond the mental age of three, it's sad. You are a good observer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A
Going to watch that one?

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].
The point is Dawkins is a scientist and the Scientific Framework and System cannot ensure 100% certainty else one who claim for 100% certainty cannot qualify as a scientist.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.
Their concession in this case is merely showing their humility in not playing God in claiming absolute certainty.
Dawkins had also claimed despite his concession he implied on a personal basis outside his scientific constraint, God is an impossibility.

It is very common to ask for "one best argument to one's claim" but it does not imply that one's best argument would be true or real.

The video merely cherry picked without taking the full contexts of Dawkins and Hitchen's position towards theism.

Meanwhile IC is extending the deception in insisting,
"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there [size]IS[/size] evidence for God" as if it is their categorical view.

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

It is the duty of metaphysics to discuss the issue like God.

I agree since the idea of an illusory God which is reified as real since eons ago has manifest with so much terrible evils and sufferings for mankind and will continue in the future.
It is from such metaphysical discussions of theism that we need to establish the root cause of theism which is fundamentally psychological and linked to the existential crisis within all humans.

It is very critical to discuss the issue of God and its related evils and therefrom striving to find solutions to wean off theism and thus prevent its related and potential evil acts upon humanity to the extreme of exterminating the human species.

Note theists from Islam are not influenced by Mutually Assured Damage from WMDs since their God assured them of eternal life in paradise with virgins even if the Earth is smashed to smithereens or made inhabitable by WMDs poisonings.

Since there are effective approaches to theism in resolving the fundamental existential crisis [proximate root cause], those who practice and condone theism are indirectly complicit if the human species is exterminated by those beasts above.

[Immanuel Can]

Dawkins never said "that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that.

It is. It's irrational any way you slice it.

But yeah, he realizes it. Why else do you think he's at pains not to be called it? He doesn't want to discredit himself immediately.

I have always claim myself to be 'not-a-theist' or a non-theist.

That's weak. If you think about it, you'll realize it makes your position only private.

If all one is is a "non-theist" by probability, then it means that all one is saying is "I think, and it seems probable to me, that there's no God." And it's weak in two ways: one is that one can be asked for your evidence for one's non-belief, and secondly, the fact that one makes one kind of probability estimate has no implications to suggest anybody else has to regard that as correct or true.

It might well be true some individual knows of no God; I have no doubt that's the case. But it doesn't even remotely suggest nobody else can.

But an Atheist wants more. He wants to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either." If he says less, then he's weak, too...maybe his ignorance of God is real, but it doesn't mean anybody else's has to be ignorant of God. If he says what he wants to say, though, he's going to get called for his evidence...which Dawkins and others do not have, so they don't want to be called "Atheists."

All this is very obvious, if you think it through.

You are strawmaning.

Nope.

There are only two possible things: the Atheist is speaking only for himself, or he's trying to say that his disbelief should be obligatory to others. If it's the former, it's weak. If it's the latter, it's devoid of reasons and evidence.

Since the term 'atheist' and 'atheism' are such loose terms those people branded therein must be differentiated in term of the different contexts they stand on.

It won't help what you call the positions. You can call them position X and position Y, if you want. Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism is weak. Take your pick. There's no other option.

I don't think Dawkins is so irrational to attempt to prove a negative as in the case of theism.

Well, he plays both sides on that one. He has to.

When nobody's interrogating him, he allows himself to be called an "Atheist." When he's being pushed, he falls back to "firm agnosticism," just as the video so clearly shows. He wants the strength of the Atheist position, because he knows agnosticism has no implications for other people; but he doesn't want to have to "pay the toll" of having to produce evidence to warrant Atheism, so he slides back to an agnostic retreat.

Whatever other may call him, his official stance is what he had written in the 'God Delusion' [/quote]
Okay. Let's say so.

Then he's an Atheist: he argues that God is a "delusion," and unless you think he's recommending "delusions," then he's claiming he knows we would be "deluded" to believe in God.

But he still has no evidence for that claim.

But the fact is Flew only turned to deism [not theism btw] when he was nearly in his 80 where by then most of the neurons of his rational brain would have atrophized.

You're totally wrong. Go and read his book, and you'll realize his mind was just fine. In fact, he was writing for PN until just shortly before his death. So unless you think the PN editors are idiots, you'd have to realize that Flew had all his marbles. Not everybody suffers dementia, you know.

Point is you are ignorant of the psychology involved in this case.

No. The point is that you are ignorant of Flew's mental state, and won't read his book for fear of being shown wrong.

I've read it. I have it right here. You're wrong.

Note my argument.
You did not counter it rationally at all.

It wasn't an "argument." It was just an allegation without proof. So it doesn't need to be addressed.

It is the principle of basic logic, i.e. if the syllogism is valid,

There was no "syllogism." Just a claim with no warrant.

Since you have thrown the book at me, you should have at least present a summary to justify your position.

You say you've read the essay. (You haven't, I'll bet: but you want me to think you have.) But if you have, you know what it says.

I have the book. Give me the page number and the quotation that concerns you, and I'll find where you're reading.

Ask your question. If it's sensible, I'll answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dawkins never said "that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that.

It is. It's irrational any way you slice it.
But yeah, he realizes it. Why else do you think he's at pains not to be called it? He doesn't want to discredit himself immediately.

I have already shown you, the term "atheist" was and is still a pejorative term thrown at non-believers. It is like how the term "Islamophobia" is thrown at anyone who discuss anything rational but unpleasant to Muslims and their apologists.
It is also the same with those 'Wokey" who throw labels at those they get offended and do not agree so to get them cancelled or even killed.
Unconsciously that is your 'wicked' strategy in not accepting the specific contexts and details regarding the issue of God.

It is on this same basis that I don't like to be associated with the term 'atheist' as well and I presume it is the same with Dawkins.
Just like Dawkins I would prefer to qualify my position more specifically with contexts and details.

That's weak. If you think about it, you'll realize it makes your position only private.

If all one is is a "non-theist" by probability, then it means that all one is saying is "I think, and it seems probable to me, that there's no God." And it's weak in two ways: one is that one can be asked for your evidence for one's non-belief, and secondly, the fact that one makes one kind of probability estimate has no implications to suggest anybody else has to regard that as correct or true.

It might well be true some individual knows of no God; I have no doubt that's the case. But it doesn't even remotely suggest nobody else can.

But an Atheist wants more. He wants to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either." If he says less, then he's weak, too...maybe his ignorance of God is real, but it doesn't mean anybody else's has to be ignorant of God. If he says what he wants to say, though, he's going to get called for his evidence...which Dawkins and others do not have, so they don't want to be called "Atheists."

All this is very obvious, if you think it through.

You are strawmaning.

Nope.

There are only two possible things: the Atheist is speaking only for himself, or he's trying to say that his disbelief should be obligatory to others. If it's the former, it's weak. If it's the latter, it's devoid of reasons and evidence.

There you go again.
You are always imposing your ideology on others and not accepting what the 'other' is qualifying his position in term of not-a-theist.
You are no different from the 'Wokey' and those who shout 'Islamophobia'.

Since the term 'atheist' and 'atheism' are such loose terms those people branded therein must be differentiated in term of the different contexts they stand on.

It won't help what you call the positions. You can call them position X and position Y, if you want. Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism is weak. Take your pick. There's no other option.

Point here is, Dawkins is not an atheist and we have to accept his explanation.

You just cannot insist "Atheism is irrational" hastily.
If someone claims to be an atheist, then you have to review his argument whether it is rational or not which is always debatable.

I don't think Dawkins is so irrational to attempt to prove a negative as in the case of theism.

Well, he plays both sides on that one. He has to.

When nobody's interrogating him, he allows himself to be called an "Atheist." When he's being pushed, he falls back to "firm agnosticism," just as the video so clearly shows. He wants the strength of the Atheist position, because he knows agnosticism has no implications for other people; but he doesn't want to have to "pay the toll" of having to produce evidence to warrant Atheism, so he slides back to an agnostic retreat.

Whatever other may call him, his official stance is what he had written in the 'God Delusion'

Okay. Let's say so.

Then he's an Atheist: he argues that God is a "delusion," and unless you think he's recommending "delusions," then he's claiming he knows we would be "deluded" to believe in God.

But he still has no evidence for that claim.

There you go again in imposing your ideology that Dawkins is an atheist when he plainly deny it.
Nope Dawkins believes those who agnoticism is 1/7 or 0.00000001/7 or ranging from 1 to 3.5 are deluded as explained in his book.

You're totally wrong. Go and read his book, and you'll realize his mind was just fine. In fact, he was writing for PN until just shortly before his death. So unless you think the PN editors are idiots, you'd have to realize that Flew had all his marbles. Not everybody suffers dementia, you know.

Point is you are ignorant of the psychology involved in this case.

No. The point is that you are ignorant of Flew's mental state, and won't read his book for fear of being shown wrong.

I've read it. I have it right here. You're wrong.

It is noted Flew depended on the Fine-Tuning Argument aka Argument from Design to justify his Deism.
I don't know Flew's exact mental state, but from research those who concede to a belief in God at old age [near 80 in the case of Flew] it is due to the atrophized and weakening of their rational inhibitors to holding back the greater impulses of the existential crisis.

It wasn't an "argument." It was just an allegation without proof. So it doesn't need to be addressed.

It is the principle of basic logic, i.e. if the syllogism is valid,

There was no "syllogism." Just a claim with no warrant.

How so?
Reproduced my argument and show how it is not valid?

Since you have thrown the book at me, you should have at least present a summary to justify your position.

You say you've read the essay. (You haven't, I'll bet: but you want me to think you have.) But if you have, you know what it says.

I have the book. Give me the page number and the quotation that concerns you, and I'll find where you're reading.

Ask your question. If it's sensible, I'll answer.

If you have not read the book, then it would be very intellectually dishonest to throw that specific book at me to justify your argument.

To ask for one page and quotations is ridiculous in this case.
The whole chapter by Robin Collins is in using the Fine-Tuning Argument [FTA] to justify the absolute independent God exists as real in accordance to his;

• The Theistic Hypothesis (T).
  According to this hypothesis, there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting or eternal, perfectly free creator of the universe whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself.

The FTA is full of fallacy [see Stenger] and critically also the equivocation fallacy of conflating the empirical scientific fact with a transcendental entity.

Since you relied on the book and thus that relevant Chapter 4 support your argument, the onus is on you to present a summary to support your claim.

I challenge you to read,
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why The Universe is Not Designed for Us,
by Victor J. Stenger
https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tun ... 1616144432

Stenger's conclusion;

We have seen that the proponents of fine-tuning make serious errors in physics,
cosmology, probability theory, and data analysis.
While not every proponent
makes every error, there is a remarkable similarity to the arguments you find in
the theist literature, which leads you to suspect that they do not do much
research to support their claims beyond simply reading each other's books. Let
me list the errors of proponents that I have pointed out in the course of this book:

• 1. They make fine-tuning claims based on the parameters of our universe
  and our form of life, ignoring the possibility of other life-forms.
  2. They claim fine-tuning for physics constants, such a c, ћ, and G, whose values are arbitrary.
  3. They assert fine-tuning for quantities, such as the ratio of electrons to protons, the expansion rate of the universe, and the mass density of the universe, whose values are precisely set by cosmological physics.
  4. They assert that the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are fine-tuned, when, in fact, this quantity cannot be universally defined.
  5. They assert that an excited state of the carbon nucleus had to be finetuned for stars to produce the carbon needed of life, when calculations show a wide range of values for the energy level of that state.
  6. They claim fine-tuning for the masses of elementary particles, when the
  ranges of these masses are set by well-established physics and are sufficiently constrained to give some form of life.
  7. They assume the strengths of the various forces are constants that can independently change from universe to universe. In fact, they vary with energy, and their relative values and energy dependences are close to being pinned down by theory, in ranges that make some kind of life possible.
  8. They make a serious analytical mistake in always taking all the parameters in the universe to be fixed and varying only one at a time.
  This fails to account for the fact that a change in one parameter can be compensated for by a change in another, opening up more parameter space for a viable universe.
  9. They misunderstand and misuse probability theory.
  10. They claim many parameters of Earth and the solar system are finetuned for life, failing to consider that with the hundreds of billions of planets that likely exist in the visible universe, and the countless number beyond our horizon, a planet with the properties needed for life is likely to occur many times.

Robin Collins countered parts of the above book but it is not sufficient.

[uwot]

Not sure what I know then

Don't worry about it, me old mucker; just take a leaf out of Socrates' book. Well, Plato's book but, er, well never mind. Anyway, the story of Socrates and the Oracle of Delphi is one of the first things any diligent philosophy student learns. Basically Socrates' mate Chaerephon asked the Oracle who the wisest man in Greece was. When Socrates was told it was him, he protested that he didn't know anything. Ta-da! Anyone who understands that they don't really know anything is much wiser than the halfwits and nutjobs who claim they do.
In the context of this thread, of course there is evidence for god, but if evidence were proof, we wouldn't need courts. Philosophy of religion is one of the courses I took as part of my bachelors degree, and the evidence that I have seen for god isn't enough for a conviction. It is blindingly obvious that the only people who find the arguments for god compelling are the same ones who already believe in god. The right royal arseholes are the ones who insist the bible is all the proof you need of god's existence, who then in almost the same breath tell us what great arguments are all the ontological, teleological, fine-tuning, microbes with propellors bullshit.

[Iwannaplato]

Those are totally different claims, of course:

I thought it was clear I realized that. There are many words and terms that mean more than one thing.

Agnosticism actually just says, "I don't know..."

Agnosticism is a word. It can't say anything. But it does mean a couple of related, but different things.

It is not taking a stand on the issue.

That is, indeed what agnosticism is limited to. As I say, to be fair, it can add a probability estimate. But basically, it is a confession of personal ignorance, of one degree or another.

Only in the first meeting. It is a claim to knowledge when it says one cannot know. In fact there are more possible meanings and uses of the word.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athe ... /#DefiAgno

Then they need to be asked, "Do you mean you personally lack a belief," or are you trying to tell other people that they ought to?

Further clarification is necessary yes, if someone wants to know more. Of course atheists of both types often explain themselves.

That's why, I suggest, Atheists tend to act like they mean "There IS NO God," until challenged. They need the strength of that claim. They would like to say not just "I personally don't believe in God," but something like "You cannot (logically, rationally, scientifically, or some other way) do so either." They want that power, but aren't up to producing the evidence to warrant it. So they slip back to agnosticism when challenged.

Hey, look I understand the urge to psychologize the enemy, if they are perceived as such. But that tends to end up getting oneself psychoanalyzed. Some might want to say the other side started it. But, then, doing it back kind of retroacively justifies the pattern.

[Sculptor]

Yep, surely atheists couldn't resolve an apparent inconsistency, it's too much for them.

I'm fine if there's a way they can.

I've just never seen it, and can't imagine how they'd do it.

So maybe you're right.

Yeah no atheist has ever developed beyond the mental age of three, it's sad. You are a good observer.

Odd that, since nearly all atheists are converted theists, who have seen the light. Obviously the wisdom of children beats the idiocy of faith and servility.