3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:29 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, of course. Many people don't know that any gods exist, but believe in a god.

Ok then, what would you require to be an agnostic theist?

A belief in a god or gods.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:45 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 03:55 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:23 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:19 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  That is complete and total bullshit.

Lack of evidence is used as a justification to disregard the hypothesis as valid UNTIL that evidence is presented, not that it actually exists. It may never show up because it doesn't exist, it may never show up because we never find it, it may never show up because it exists but we are incapable of comprehending it, but until it shows up, it's just a worthless assertion with no standing and no use and is therefore a waste of time contemplating.

So even if it's true it's still a waste of time? You sound like you need to know the answers and cannot entertain any other possibility, i.e. being unable to know.

That is the EXACT antithesis of my viewpoints.

It's how we as a species prioritize our database of knowledge and observations

ANYTHING MIGHT be true ,but not everything is. We use logic and evidence to categorize arguments along a spectrum of probabilities of being accurate descriptions of reality. While any viewpoint "could" be true, they are far from having an equal probability of being so. The logical solution is to go with the answers that hold the strongest evidence in their favor, and if the weaker arguments want to find similar standing, they require the same type of valid supporting evidence to back them up. In the case where we don't have enough evidence to determine its likelihood of accuracy, the best answer is indeed "I don't know yet."

I view all the personal, theistic gods of organized religion to be both patently absurd and inconsistent with the nature of reality that I observe, and therefore consider them invalid explanations, NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO EXiST, but logically invalid explanations. I also don't believe in the impersonal, deistic concept of gods, because, again, the evidence is absent. I'm not saying they CAN'T exist, I'm just saying that until the evidence is presented (and again this may never ever happen for the reasons I've listed in the previous post), I have NO reason to consider them as valid hypotheses.

I'm not going to consider all explanations to have an equal probability of being true just because they all COULD POSSIBLY be true, that's simply irrational. Therefore, I am not going to seriously consider each one as equally valid or even likely explanations.

"Absolute knowledge" is a bullshit concept.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
08-01-2014, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 03:56 PM by Brownshirt.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:29 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Ok then, what would you require to be an agnostic theist?

A belief in a god or gods.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or not.

No, what evidence, occurrence etc would YOU require to believe, and how would YOU differentiate between know and believe?

Quote:Tartarus Sauce
That is the EXACT antithesis of my viewpoints.

It's how we as a species prioritize our database of knowledge and observations

ANYTHING MIGHT be true ,but not everything is. We use logic and evidence to categorize arguments along a spectrum of probabilities of being accurate descriptions of reality. While any viewpoint "could" be true, they are far from having an equal probability of being so. The logical solution is to go with the answers that hold the strongest evidence in their favor, and if the weaker arguments want to find similar standing, they require the same type of valid supporting evidence to back them up. In the case where we don't have enough evidence to determine its likelihood of accuracy, the best answer is indeed "I don't know yet."

I view all the personal, theistic gods of organized religion to be both patently absurd and inconsistent with the nature of reality that I observe, and therefore consider them invalid explanations, NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO EXiST, but logically invalid explanations. I also don't believe in the impersonal, deistic concept of gods, because, again, the evidence is absent. I'm not saying they CAN'T exist, I'm just saying that until the evidence is presented (and again this may never ever happen for the reasons I've listed in the previous post), I have NO reason to consider them as valid hypotheses.

I'm not going to consider all explanations to have an equal probability of being true just because they all COULD POSSIBLY be true, that's simply irrational.

You're still missing my point. I'm not denying that we cannot make sense of what we can observe, assess etc. I'm saying taking a stance by believing we can assess all of reality as it is, not as we observe it to be, is an assumption.

You attempt to separate yourself from the typical atheist and write the standard block around why existence can be rationalised with evidence (or lack of) and no saying "they can't exist" does not absolve you from this perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:52 PM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:27 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The use does not negate Huxleys agnosticism at all. (that's what you seem to not understand) Both usages of the concept can stand equally, and people in this community and other ones identify as that agnostic. How are they or anyones position negated??

You make am awful lot of assumptions. Atheists isn't something you can really define as doing this or that as a blanket group outside of considering themselves an atheist.

Several atheists I've seen here, myself included, don't assume knowledge can be obtained. I both don't assert knowledge or assume that it can be obtained. Why do you see proclaim hardline differences when they are not all there? It seems like you are generalizing a position based on assumptions or some encounters.

I have a question for you beyond this. What do you think about the concept of strong atheism vs weak atheism? Those are basically used as synonyms for the gnostic/agnostic atheism positions. Does weak atheism negate your view in anyway as you feel agnostic atheism does?

You can claim to not know whether a god exists or not, that has nothing to do with agnosticism. Agnosticism is claiming we lack the capacity to know, it's a permanent state, and is not caused or dependent on evidence (or lack of) for it.

So if you assume that knowledge cannot be obtained, but you require evidence to know/believe, you've set yourself up to be an atheist. It may make rational sense to you, but it's very dishonest to me.

I think the concept of weak vs strong is a have. Weak atheists use it to dodge a burden of proof, but still claim atheism. I would prefer the terms weak vs strong, as agnosticism is not a synonym for weak.

The lines between belief and knowledge can be highly subjective and blurry.

Plenty of others and I don't assume knowledge cannot be obtained. Nor assume knowledge can be obtained. I'm confused why you keep adding these statements about atheists asserting things they in no way necessarily assert.

I go at it from a default which is not knowing or asserting. It's not hard to come from that stance.

You still have not explained how the use of agnostic atheist/theist negates the meaning in Huxley agnosticism. People might believe you if you had evidence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
I don't see many ways of myself becoming an agnostic theist (although, I'm also not an agnostic atheist). I imagine that most decent evidence of a god would make me a gnostic theist, not an agnostic one.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:59 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
You claim to be agnostic BS but after page after page of nonsensical regurgitation on your part I highly doubt you are. It seems to me that you are a theist that can't wrap their head around the fact that one can have both agnostic and atheistic views.

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:50 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  A belief in a god or gods.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or not.

No, what evidence, occurrence etc would YOU require to believe, and how would YOU differentiate between know and believe?

You asked what it would take for me to be an agnostic theist.

It would require evidence for the existence of god(s) that outweighs the evidence against.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Everybody tread carefully... If he becomes any more dense, he may collapse in on himself.

He's nearing an intellectual black hole state. At his current density, incoming information is being shredded, making that which emerges unintelligible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
08-01-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You can claim to not know whether a god exists or not, that has nothing to do with agnosticism. Agnosticism is claiming we lack the capacity to know, it's a permanent state, and is not caused or dependent on evidence (or lack of) for it.

So if you assume that knowledge cannot be obtained, but you require evidence to know/believe, you've set yourself up to be an atheist. It may make rational sense to you, but it's very dishonest to me.

I think the concept of weak vs strong is a have. Weak atheists use it to dodge a burden of proof, but still claim atheism. I would prefer the terms weak vs strong, as agnosticism is not a synonym for weak.

The lines between belief and knowledge can be highly subjective and blurry.

Plenty of others and I don't assume knowledge cannot be obtained. Nor assume knowledge can be obtained. I'm confused why you keep adding these statements about atheists asserting things they in no way necessarily assert.

I go at it from a default which is not knowing or asserting. It's not hard to come from that stance.

You still have not explained how the use of agnostic atheist/theist negates the meaning in Huxley agnosticism. People might believe you if you had evidence.
The difference is about what we claim, you claim "I don't know", agnostics claim "we cannot know" or it is impossible to make a claim of knowledge about it. There's a huge difference.

I am very militant about "no one knows", and when people who don't know what agnostic means think this means I'm not agnostic by taking such a militant position on it. They're very wrong. Agnostic is not a middle ground, it's a position by itself.


I go by Huxley's defintion, such as:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable

while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:50 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You're still missing my point. I'm not denying that we cannot make sense of what we can observe, assess etc. I'm saying taking a stance by believing we can assess all of reality as it is, not as we observe it to be, is an assumption.

It's an assumption I don't make. I'm not sure why you think I do. Of course the stances we take about reality are of what we observe to be, some just seem to consistently have closer accurate alignments than others.

If your talking about an epistemologically unknowable god, as in one that can't be comprehended in any sense, then "god" isn't really a term that describes it (nothing can at that point). I have no viewpoints on something I can't comprehend. The typical notions of "god" though are very much humanly conceivable, in fact I think they are all human constructions.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: