Statism and the Null Hypothesis (from Fail Quotes)

[MrBogosity]

The war on drugs is a great example of secular violence.

Then how come it's so hard to find an atheist who's in favor of it?

[MrBogosity]

Also, I would welcome your opinion on Michio Kaku's contrastingly agnostic point of view. 01:07:34 & 01:34:45 (apologies for the short one's comments)  He makes a very similar point that I've been trying to make all along.

Cherry-picking is also ignoring Dr. Shermer's response at 1:16:27. In fact, he makes the point so clearly and succinctly that I can only conclude that you didn't bother listening to that part.

[Ex_Nihil0]

You keep trying to fall back on this excuse, but it doesn't work. If a statement is not useful for determining reality, then--DUH--it can't be used to determine reality!

I'm not falling back on any excuse.  Metaphysics doesn't tell you what reality's true nature is and I never said otherwise.  It only tells you what it could be.  And yes, some metaphysical statements can morph into scientific statements when science advances enough to examine them.

No, they're based on definitions. Example: "a = a; if a = b then b = a; if a = b and b = c then a= c." This is NOT a statement of self-evident truth as a lot of people try to make it out to be; it's the definition of the concept of "equal."

If you are going to make a proof based on definitions, then your proof is dependent on the accuracy of those definitions.  Definitions are derived from experience, which makes the meaning of every word an induction.  Again, logical proofs and mathematical proofs tell you nothing of reality.  If you want to say that these "definitions" are not axiomatic, fine, but I'll just caulk this up to it being your personal point of view.

No, a triangle is defined as a polygon with three sides. The fact that the inner angles total 180 degrees is a PROOF, NOT a definition.

I appreciate your correction, but this detail that changes nothing about my argument.

AND his idea was falsifiable. It COULD have been proven wrong; it wasn't.

Nobody had any idea that it was even possible to prove atoms wrong because they could not be observed.  As I stated above, metaphysical statements that are non-falsifiable can eventually become falsifiable later.  This is one such example.  There may come a time when "gods" becomes a falsifiable idea, but until then, "gods" is off limits to science because current science is too limited to address the question.  

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, that was corpuscularism, not atomism.

It doesn't matter if the details of the two concepts were different.  The point is that their was a notion that matter was made up of little bits that were too small to see.  It may have been difficult to get the exact idea down, but the notion of matter being made up of small particles isn't all that counter intuitive.  

And how are you going to test something without having that first? EVERY new idea in science starts out that way. That's NOT cherry-picking, and it's dishonest of you to try and claim that it is.

No, it made it a testable (falsifiable) theory.

How can a scientist first get his testable idea if he doesn't consider metaphysics first?  What's wrong with that?

Again, not every idea in science is falsifiable right away.  Atomic theory didn't get "final" confirmation until early last century.  It didn't become falsifiable right away, which was my point.  Scientists had to develop techniques to look for atoms first in order to confirm their existence, which I already stated.  If no such techniques were ever developed to this date, you'd be calling atomic theory unfalsifiable right now.  Truth be told, the scientific establishment always dismisses claims like atomic theory until such a time that proper techniques are invented for testing.    

Which is why [metaphysical statements] can't be used to determine reality.

I never said that they did.  I only said that they were useful to science for inspiration because they could be true.  As long as one isn't dogmatic, metaphysics do have something to contribute.

No, I am not! I am ONLY wanting to test if that metaphysical statement has any use to us for determining what is real and what is not. That's the OPPOSITE of being dogmatic!

You can say you aren't being dogmatic all you want, but the moment you default to the NULL to assume a metaphysical statement, you are not being rational, you are being dogmatic.  Agnosticism is the only rational choice, not assumption.

You have yet to do ANYTHING to support this.

Just spending as much time as I have on YouTube and in real life, I've met very few Atheists who weren't socialists or some other kind of Liberal. You are only one of a small handful that I have actually found.  I've seen the debates and flame wars.  Libertarians are clearly outnumbered, and Libertarian atheists are outnumbered even more.  And anytime I look for what atheists politics is supposed to be, I get a bunch of Liberal bullshit about taxation and socialized medicine.

Funny; that's the exact same reason why I insist that they MUST be!

Then the difference between us is your assertion that metaphysical statements should be assumed wrong and my assertion that nothing should be assumed until such a time that they can be tested, if ever.  Clearly, I have the more open mined point of view, yet no so open minded that I accept metaphysical statements blindly.

You mean, like yours did earlier when I asked you how you know that nothing can be known?

That's easy to answer.  Everything we know, including the very basis of math proofs, are based on inductions.  This means you can't be certain of anything and reality itself may not even exist.  How could I be certain that what I know is the Truth?  If you wish to make the positive claim that everything we know is certain and true.  You'll find the task very difficult if not impossible.

Then how come it's so hard to find an atheist who's in favor of it?

Because so few of them have something to gain financially.  If you owned a prison company as an atheist, you might be for the war on drugs, too.  If you owned a company that got big military defense contracts as an atheists, you might be all for the war on terror.  If you owned the bank that prints the money that gets loaned to the government to pay for said war, you might actually be for said war.  I would expect no less from a race of super intelligent monkeys.  

[Ex_Nihil0]

Cherry-picking is also ignoring Dr. Shermer's response at 1:16:27. In fact, he makes the point so clearly and succinctly that I can only conclude that you didn't bother listening to that part.

Asking your opinion about Michio Kaku's statements is cherry picking? Yes, I heard Shermer's response, but I was interested in what you had to say about his statements. Cherry picking relates to omission of evidence, not to singling out a particular debater for your analysis because I thought it a good summary of my position.  Logical fallacies have actual meanings.  You can't just throw them around like and be somebody worth respecting.  This is so dishonest of you, I'm actually socked, but I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to you not having your morning coffee yet.

Edit:  To respond to Sherman's statement, I he uses theism as an excuse for his position as if he must take the polar opposite position in order to have balance.  Why else would he address theists on "that level"?  Sorry, but I call bullshit because his argument is structured for the sake of politics.

[MrBogosity]

If you are going to make a proof based on definitions, then your proof is dependent on the accuracy of those definitions.

That's a nonsense statement. If you create a concept and give it a definition, then that definition IS accurate--BY DEFINITION. That statement is WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EQUAL! Accuracy doesn't enter into it!

Definitions are derived from experience,

Not of purely conceptual constructs like "equal."

Again, logical proofs and mathematical proofs tell you nothing of reality.

Complete balderdash. They do it all the time. Science wouldn't work otherwise.

I appreciate your correction, but this detail that changes nothing about my argument.

Your argument was that we just made up the thing about a triangle's angles totalling 180 degrees. We didn't. We couldn't just have arbitrarily decided to make it 179 degrees, any more than we could have arbitrarily decided to make pi 4.

Nobody had any idea that it was even possible to prove atoms wrong because they could not be observed.

What people believe is irrelevant.

As I stated above, metaphysical statements that are non-falsifiable can eventually become falsifiable later.  This is one such example.  There may come a time when "gods" becomes a falsifiable idea, but until then, "gods" is off limits to science because current science is too limited to address the question.

The very same cop-out that Shermer corrected.

It doesn't matter if the details of the two concepts were different.

They are different at a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL! If you don't understand that, then you either don't understand the science or you don't understand ancient atomism.

The point is that their was a notion that matter was made up of little bits that were too small to see.[/quote]

No, the idea was that these bits were fundamental, universal, indivisible, and infinite. NONE of these are true.

It may have been difficult to get the exact idea down, but the notion of matter being made up of small particles isn't all that counter intuitive.

Nor is it in any way unique to atomism. Atomism was NOT an attempt to state this since this was a widely-held view; what it was was an attempt to quantify it and describe how it worked. And it could not have been more wrong.

It's like saying Lamarck was right because evolution is right.

How can a scientist first get his testable idea if he doesn't consider metaphysics first?

Metaphysics hardly has the monopoly on coming up with new ideas. Look at how many started in science fiction, for example.

I never said that they did.  I only said that they were useful to science for inspiration because they could be true.

The same could be said of anything. Nothing special about metaphysics there.

You can say you aren't being dogmatic all you want, but the moment you default to the NULL to assume a metaphysical statement, you are not being rational, you are being dogmatic.  Agnosticism is the only rational choice, not assumption.

You accuse me of being dogmatic, and then in the next sentence make a mind-bogglingly dogmatic statement. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Just spending as much time as I have on YouTube and in real life, I've met very few Atheists who weren't socialists or some other kind of Liberal.

Michael Shermer? Penn & Teller? Dean Cameron? Drew Carey? Nick Gillespie? Trey Parker and Matt Stone? I can keep going. Anecdotes are NOT evidence.

Libertarians are clearly outnumbered,

We're not anywhere near as outnumbered in the atheist/skeptic movement as we are in general.

And anytime I look for what atheists politics is supposed to be,

There's your problem right there: it's not "supposed to be" anything. Atheism is a rejection of one particular claim. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Then the difference between us is your assertion that metaphysical statements should be assumed wrong and my assertion that nothing should be assumed

What you fail to realize is that the two are the same thing.

Because so few of them have something to gain financially.

That's true of most real-world conservatives and liberals who are gung-ho in favor of the drug war.

Asking your opinion about Michio Kaku's statements is cherry picking?

You made particular claims based on his statements that were refuted by Shermer. Yet, you neglected to even MENTION him.

Cherry picking relates to omission of evidence, not to singling out a particular debater for your analysis

If you reference an argument without dealing with the response to it, it's cherry-picking, plain and simple. And I don't drink coffee either. Stop projecting your failings on to me and trying to appear generous by making up a bogus reason for it. That may gain you verisimilitude most other places on the internet, but THIS forum is different.

To respond to Sherman's statement, I he uses theism as an excuse for his position as if he must take the polar opposite position in order to have balance.

That's not even CLOSE to what he said.

[Travis Retriever]

@Shane:  FlowCell did NOT just try and use the whole "atheist politics" excuse.

[Gumba Masta]

If he did I want some fish and a skillet.

[Travis Retriever]

And some spaghetti.

He does realize that that's just an appeal to popular belief (e.g. more atheists believe in this, therefore this is an 'atheist' political system.)
I believe the good folks at the Atheist Experience put it best:

"Q: Aren't all atheists Communists (or vice versa)?

A: All Communists may well be atheists, simply because their political system rarely exposes them to anything else. It does not follow that all atheists are Communists. Atheism is a view on the existence of the supernatural, not a political system. Some atheists favor some form of socialism. Many agree with the writings of Ayn Rand, who was a very strong supporter of both unbounded Capitalism and atheism. Many atheists are Libertarians and Democrats; fewer tend to be Republicans, but that is mostly because of their stance on church and state, not always because of their financial plans.

Atheists come in all political flavors. We don't feel that the Communist system does anything to promote well-reasoned atheism, so we don't support it."-- Souce

I would also LOVE to know what the "logical inconsistencies" of atheist libertarians are...
Especially given his video response to thunderf00t...

[Ex_Nihil0]

That's a nonsense statement. If you create a concept and give it a definition, then that definition IS accurate--BY DEFINITION. That statement is WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EQUAL! Accuracy doesn't enter into it!

Not of purely conceptual constructs like "equal."

That's pretty weak, Shane.  In order to know that 1+1=2, you have to be shown.[/quote]

Complete balderdash. [Logical Proofs] do it all the time. Science wouldn't work otherwise.

Only by your own dogmatic degree do logical proofs assert statements about the nature of reality.  You can't have certain conclusions when your fundamentals are inductions.  Science doesn't give you certainty and it never will and no amount of wishful thinking will do that, sir.

Your argument was that we just made up the thing about a triangle's angles totalling 180 degrees. We didn't. We couldn't just have arbitrarily decided to make it 179 degrees, any more than we could have arbitrarily decided to make pi 4.

My argument was based on the fact that triangles are triangles because of how they are defined.  The actually definition, being based on my error or being based on three points isn't relevant to my argument, just the fact that it is what it is because of how it is defined. Pi is what it is, because of how the numbers are defined.  Numbers and mathematics are little more then mental abstractions used to model and measure things.  

What people believe is irrelevant.

Its completely relevant, otherwise their is no distinction between metaphysics and science.  But that's what you want, isn't it?

The very same cop-out that Shermer corrected.

Like I said, Shermer's correction was bullshit.  He even said that Kaku was technically correct before he got back to addressing Craig and the other theists.

They are different at a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL! If you don't understand that, then you either don't understand the science or you don't understand ancient atomism.

The "fundamentals" don't matter to what I'm saying because I'm looking at the big picture of atomic theory's evolution while you get bogged down in the details and say that they can't possibly be related because that would require metaphysics to be part of the process.  You get so worked up about minutia that you can't see the forest for the trees.  

The point is that their was a notion that matter was made up of little bits that were too small to see.

No, the idea was that these bits were fundamental, universal, indivisible, and infinite. NONE of these are true.

Quite correct.  This is also strong evidence of metaphysics in science.

Nor is it in any way unique to atomism. Atomism was NOT an attempt to state this since this was a widely-held view; what it was was an attempt to quantify it and describe how it worked. And it could not have been more wrong.

What's your point?

It's like saying Lamarck was right because evolution is right.

What?  No it isn't.  How could you even remotely think this about me?  You clearly aren't grasping what I'm saying at all, probably because you are so lost in details.  Nit picking errors doesn't invalidate my entire argument, though I do appreciate you finding the ones that actually matter when you do.

Metaphysics hardly has the monopoly on coming up with new ideas. Look at how many started in science fiction, for example.

1) I never said it did have a monopoly, so what's your point?
2) You made the claim that metaphysics had the hallmark of fiction, so how is it any different then science fiction?
3) Science fiction can be very metaphysical, so what's your point?

The same could be said of anything. Nothing special about metaphysics there.

Metaphysics are intimately involved with science, especially during the extraordinary phase.  I think that makes it very special.

You accuse me of being dogmatic, and then in the next sentence make a mind-bogglingly dogmatic statement. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Since when was NOT making an assumption dogmatic when you have no evidence for or against something?  As I stated before (and you keep ignoring) assuming the NULL when you have absolutely no way of calculating a probability a metaphysical statement being true is completely dogmatic.  If you can't calculate a probability, you have no basis for your assumption.

Michael Shermer? Penn & Teller? Dean Cameron? Drew Carey? Nick Gillespie? Trey Parker and Matt Stone? I can keep going. Anecdotes are NOT evidence.

Guess what, Shane?  Naming those individuals would be anecdotal to your own experience.  If you want to show me that Libertarians aren't in the minority among atheists, you'll need to give me actual statistics.

We're not anywhere near as outnumbered in the atheist/skeptic movement as we are in general.

No, but you still are outnumbered.  What's worse is that you are minority within a minority.  Not that this makes your position invalid.  Its just a hell of a lot harder for you to get your way and impose freedom and liberty on everybody (yes, I'm being ironic).

There's your problem right there: it's not "supposed to be" anything. Atheism is a rejection of one particular claim. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Its only "supposed to be" based on the links provided by Google when I go searching for it.  Granted, it isn't 100% scientific, but it is 100% disappointing.

What you fail to realize is that the two are the same thing.

What you fail to realize is that the two are completely different.  One makes an assumption for the NULL, and the other assumes nothing.  NULL is a rejection of the positive.  Assuming nothing isn't a rejection of anything.

That's true of most real-world conservatives and liberals who are gung-ho in favor of the drug war.

Yes, because most humans are politically dishonest and selfish bastards, like most primates.

You made particular claims based on his statements that were refuted by Shermer. Yet, you neglected to even MENTION him.

Who gives a shit?  My point was that Kaku's statement was similar to my own perspective.  I thought that maybe you'd understand my perspective better if it were explained by Kaku instead of myself.  Shermer's statements weren't worth mentioning any more then any other debater because all other debaters statements were not similar to my own.  Calling this cherry picking is nonsensical and hysterial.

If you reference an argument without dealing with the response to it, it's cherry-picking, plain and simple.

I was asking for YOUR response to it, not Shermer's.  Shermer's opinion shouldn't have any berring on how you respond to Kaku any more then your response would have affected his.  That isn't cherry picking unless you are resorting to moon logic, you liar.

And I don't drink coffee either. Stop projecting your failings on to me and trying to appear generous by making up a bogus reason for it. That may gain you verisimilitude most other places on the internet, but THIS forum is different.

I haven't failed nearly as much as your ego would suggest.

That's not even CLOSE to what he said.

Do we really need to go there?

Here is the actual quote from the time stamp you provided as best as I could transcribe: " Michio, you are right, technically there is no way to prove nor disprove the existece of God, but please understand [these theists] argue that you can prove it through science and through tests and through empirical reason and so on.  We're arguing that they haven't done so from a scientific perspective.  That's the only reason we deal with it on that level."

I interpreted his statement thusly: "He uses theism as an excuse for his position as if he must take the polar opposite position in order to have balance."

You conveniently left out the last part: "Why else would he address theists on 'that level'?"  

If he agrees with Michio, why bother sinking down to level of the theists?  And if he agrees with Micho, how is Micho making a cop out?  The only difference I see between Micho and Shermer is that Shermer wants atheism to be a polar opposite to the theists.  How could you even see Shermer's statements as a counter argument to Micho?  Its like he's only making excuses for not being agnostic but atheist.

[Ex_Nihil0]

I would also LOVE to know what the "logical inconsistencies" of atheist libertarians are...
Especially given his video response to thunderf00t...

At the moment, I am currently revising my basis for Libertarianism.  Right now, I'm considering quite strongly that Libertarianism is more compatible with Agnosticism then Atheism for two reasons.

The core of Libertarianism has always been to not make assumptions about how people's lives should be run.  I believe this is because legitimacy is actually a metaphysical concept that is undecidable (even though democracy and divine right have been debunked, legitimacy could come from another source).  This runs parallel to the Agnostic point of view that God is undecidable much like how legitimacy is undecidable.  This means that whom one chooses as leader, if one chooses a leader at all, is a personal choice much like spiritual beliefs are a personal choice.  This allows for a bare minimum of government that works on a purely voluntary basis.

Using Shane's NULL hypothesis algorithm applied to state legitimacy, the assumption becomes a hard anarchy, where everybody remains leaderless, NOT Libertarianism.  If, however, you use the NULL hypothesis to assume some form of Libertarian government, you are trading one illegitimate state for another, even if it is indeed a very small one. Admittedly, some of our anarchist friends will really like this line of reasoning.  More power to them, I guess, but it is still an error, I think, to apply science to non-falsifiable statements and metaphysics.

[MrBogosity]

Only by your own dogmatic degree do logical proofs assert statements about the nature of reality.

Well, gee, I guess all these scientists just waste their time doing math. I guess my video using trigonometry to show the distance to SN1987A didn't really prove anything at all and we really have no idea how far away it is.

You dig yourself in deeper and deeper with every post.

You can't have certain conclusions when your fundamentals are inductions.

Okay: in what way is my proof of the distance to 1987A uncertain, beyond just the margin of error of the measuring precision?

Pi is what it is, because of how the numbers are defined.

No, pi is the same ratio, regardless of how you define the numbers. You can use whatever base you want, you can even use whatever non-integral system you can come up with, it'll still be the same ratio.

Its completely relevant, otherwise their is no distinction between metaphysics and science.  But that's what you want, isn't it?

Scientific conclusions ARE NOT BASED ON BELIEFS. I don't know if you're being think here or deliberately trolling.

Like I said, Shermer's correction was bullshit.

You have yet to show how.

The "fundamentals" don't matter to what I'm saying because I'm looking at the big picture

Well, if you look at THAT big a picture, you can make astrology appear correct! If the fundamentals don't work out, then the theory is WRONG. That's just all there is to it. And the "big picture" you are left with is nothing specific to atomism; it was universally accepted that things were just larger structure of smaller things. Atomism said that there was one and only one small thing that could come together in infinite patterns to make everything. That was WRONG, and the only part of atomism that you're left with which was right was the part people believed without atomism anyway.

Quite correct.  This is also strong evidence of metaphysics in science.

So, when you're wrong, you're right?

What's your point?

The same one I just reiterated.

What?  No it isn't.

Yes, it is! If Atomism was right because things are made of smaller things, then Lamarckism is right because species change and evolve. That's your "big picture" again.

1) I never said it did have a monopoly, so what's your point?

The point is you aren't making any specific statement about metaphysics.

2) You made the claim that metaphysics had the hallmark of fiction, so how is it any different then science fiction?

It's not, really. Occasionally it's right, usually it's wrong. And the way we know when it's right or wrong is because of SCIENCE.

3) Science fiction can be very metaphysical, so what's your point?

Irrelevant.

Metaphysics are intimately involved with science, especially during the extraordinary phase.  I think that makes it very special.

Since when was NOT making an assumption dogmatic

So, you were NOT making an assumption when you said, "Agnosticism is the only rational choice"?

As I stated before (and you keep ignoring) assuming the NULL when you have absolutely no way of calculating a probability

Again, H0 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with probabilities.

Guess what, Shane?  Naming those individuals would be anecdotal to your own experience.

These are prominent and influential libertarian atheists. Deal with it.

If you want to show me that Libertarians aren't in the minority among atheists,

I never said they weren't, stop lying. You were the one who said they were practically nonexistent.

you'll need to give me actual statistics.

Shifting Burden Fallacy.

No, but you still are outnumbered.

Again, COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not to mention argumentum ad populum.

Its only "supposed to be" based on the links provided by Google when I go searching for it.

Again, COMPLETELY irrelevant.

What you fail to realize is that the two are completely different.  One makes an assumption for the NULL, and the other assumes nothing.

Null IS nothing. Assuming the null IS assuming nothing.

Assuming nothing isn't a rejection of anything.

Yes, it is! Assuming nothing is a rejection of something.

Yes, because most humans are politically dishonest and selfish bastards, like most primates.

No, they aren't. Most humans--and most primates, for that matter--are good and generous and altruistic. This is very well-supported and documented.

Here is the actual quote from the time stamp you provided as best as I could transcribe: " Michio, you are right, technically there is no way to prove nor disprove the existece of God, but please understand [these theists] argue that you can prove it through science and through tests and through empirical reason and so on.  We're arguing that they haven't done so from a scientific perspective.  That's the only reason we deal with it on that level."

Yes. Now where in that statement is there ANYTHING about balance? THEY HAVEN'T MADE THEIR CASE. That's the point. If you haven't made your case, then no one else is under any logical obligations to consider it.

You conveniently left out the last part: "Why else would he address theists on 'that level'?"

And just what are you claiming he meant by "that level"?

Using Shane's NULL hypothesis algorithm applied to state legitimacy, the assumption becomes a hard anarchy, where everybody remains leaderless, NOT Libertarianism.

Incorrect. Saying that the burden of proof is on the statists is NOT the same thing as saying that there's no way they can ever meet that burden.

[Travis Retriever]

At the moment, I am currently revising my basis for Libertarianism.  Right now, I'm considering quite strongly that Libertarianism is more compatible with Agnosticism then Atheism for two reasons.

I should point this out now, but, you do realize that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive right?
From  http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#atheist_agnostic
"Q: What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a "theist" is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A "gnostic" is one who knows about the existence of god and an "agnostic" is one who thinks that god is unknowable.

Notice that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an "untheist", perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a "gnostic atheist", one who doesn't believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.

So there are four possible ways one could be.

    1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
    2. Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
    3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved
    4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist

Case 3 is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and case 4 is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.

Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can't positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist."
I'd recommend reading the entries on the subject on the Iron Chariots Wiki.
It covers it in greater depth.

Also, why all the metaphysical jibber-jabber?
An Atheist is simply one without a belief in a deity or deities.
An Anarchist is simply one without a belief in the necessity or virtue of the state.
Both are simply the H0 at work.
Also, a libertarian can be an anarchist, such as Murray Rothbard and Mary Ruwart.

[Travis Retriever]

Using Shane's NULL hypothesis algorithm applied to state legitimacy, the assumption becomes a hard anarchy, where everybody remains leaderless, NOT Libertarianism.

A government (as I and other anarchists define it) (n): A group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force.
A geopolitical monopoly on the "legitimate" initiation of force where said force would otherwise be considered illegitimate if used by private citizens not in the name of the state.--my youtube page.
Anarchists aren't against "leaders" so long as they are voluntary.  E.G.: an employer in a free market.

Shane's definition differs from ours in that he has it being an organization that uses force, but not necessarily the initiation of force.  I've also seen him claim that he wouldn't have it be a monopoly either.
So, at least by mine, Stefan's, Lord T Hawkeye's, Ladyattis', etc definitions of government, Shane is an anarchist.

As for Agnosticism in the context that you seem to be talking about, it's a contradiction.
It's basically saying, "I know that god is unknowable".
Just like you did earlier with your statement about "Truth".
Repeating the self detonating statement doesn't make it any less bogus.

[yt]Isk6Tf5JyM4[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

I fall back on the NULL because regardless of it being potentially true or not, government power has the potential for great harm, and indeed, we know that it does because we have seen it in the past.

Then by your own argument, the same MUST be done to religion, which has done vast harm.
Even ignoring the deaths:

[yt]Oj9rDCrKSHw[/yt]

As for stuff besides religion and statism (redundancy for the win ):  http://www.whatstheharm.net/

[MrBogosity]

A government (as I and other anarchists define it) (n): A group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force.

This isn't the definition used by libertarians, by the way. To a libertarian, having an authority over a geographic location does NOT give that authority the moral or legal right to initiate force. It's a system of mutual protection, but it should fund itself and operate itself by means of voluntary participation.

An anarchist would respond to that by saying that it's not really a government then. It's one of the ways that anarchists and libertarians continually talk past each other.