3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 05:56 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 04:13 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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

No one is actually disagreeing with your position. Consider

The definition of agnostic is simply broader than you are willing to accept.
When I say I am an agnostic atheist, it is clear to most what is meant, and both of those words follow the dictionary definitions.

So you can be as upset as you want about this, but that has absolutely no impact on me.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
08-01-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 05:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:13 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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

No one is actually disagreeing with your position. Consider

The definition of agnostic is simply broader than you are willing to accept.
When I say I am an agnostic atheist, it is clear to most what is meant, and both of those words follow the dictionary definitions.

So you can be as upset as you want about this, but that has absolutely no impact on me.

i'm not upset, just letting you know I disagree. You want to change (not broaden) what the word means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 05:38 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Sceptical in what perspective?

Its skeptical as it's withholding taking a view/position on a concept.

Iit's believing that a position cannot be taken, not withholding one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 06:07 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 05:58 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 05:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one is actually disagreeing with your position. Consider

The definition of agnostic is simply broader than you are willing to accept.
When I say I am an agnostic atheist, it is clear to most what is meant, and both of those words follow the dictionary definitions.

So you can be as upset as you want about this, but that has absolutely no impact on me.

i'm not upset, just letting you know I disagree. You want to change (not broaden) what the word means.

No, look at the dictionary. The word has the meaning you insist on and the one I am using.

The only thing wrong here is your intransigence in the face of clear evidence that your position is not reasonable.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
08-01-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 06:01 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 05:38 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Its skeptical as it's withholding taking a view/position on a concept.

Iit's believing that a position cannot be taken, not withholding one.

And you continue to ignore two facts.

First, that you are talking about a knowledge position, not a belief position.

Second, that atheism is a belief position, not a knowledge position.

They are on orthogonal scales.

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, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 06:26 PM by Adrianime.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 05:11 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:53 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  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.
That's my point. If you know then you will believe, so separating and then defining yourself as agnostic and atheist becomes pointless.
No, I'm of the mindset that agnosticism is trivial as it applies to almost any point on any topic because current knowledge will always be imperfect. That's why my personality would be more likely to take the stance, "based on this evidence, I know there is a god." Many people disagree with this though, and might be inclined to say, "the evidence is pointing to there being a god, but I don't know it is true for sure."

I've never seen a piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god though. I've only seen "evidence" that supports the fact that there are some things that we don't yet know, and may never know.

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, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 06:29 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 04:38 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:17 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  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.

I figured you knew I was talking about an unknowable god. I use the term god as a concept, it's interchangeable with deity, creator whatever.

"I have no viewpoints on something I can't comprehend" illustrates an agnostic perspective and hopefully you understand the difference between "not knowing" and this.

Oh boy, I can foresee this heading into igtheist territory.

So, yes, the contention seems to be mostly semantics. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that "atheist" encompasses a lack of belief in an epistemologically unknowable god because I'm not an advocate for giving labels to epistemological unknowables. You give an epistemological unknowable a label and all of the sudden you've given it a form to attach conceptions to, and I don't think I need to explain why that doesn't work.

I consider myself an atheist in regards to the very much humanly conceived images of deities which most certainly do not fall under the category of "epistemological unknowable," and that's what I've always conceived the word "atheist" to entail. If you must have a breakdown:

Psychologically, I am atheist---I do not worry about the existence of gods or concern myself with them in my day to day routine or how these hypothetical beings would react to my actions, because I don't think they exist.
Logically, I am atheist---for all logical pathways I follow and all evidence presented to me point in the direction of gods being manmade constructs with no basis in external reality.
Epistemologically, I am agnostic---1. Even though I consider them logically invalid, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they could exist regardless ( I just don't think it's rational to assume they do). 2. The case of unknowable gods, which I have no opinion on since I can't have one (although as I've said, I don't think it's justifiable to give such entities/forces/whatever-ma-bobs the label "god" at this point).

Hence I consider myself agnostic atheist or if you still really have problems with that you can interchange it with weak atheist.

Is everything clear now?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Do humans invent gods = yes 100% true

Is there any evidence for supernatural now we have technology to test / record peoples fantastic claims. = no

The agnostic position became no longer tenable to me
And most I talk to admit its just easier to say agnostic to avoid persecution by theists. (Atheists don't fire employees for being honest)

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 05:58 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  i'm not upset, just letting you know I disagree. You want to change (not broaden) what the word means.

No, look at the dictionary. The word has the meaning you insist on and the one I am using.

The only thing wrong here is your intransigence in the face of clear evidence that your position is not reasonable.

When you say "the dictionary", do you mean this one:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic - where point 1 covers what we're discussing.

1.a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

1a, will be mine, while presumably 1b will be yours? i don't know what "true atheism" is. Does this mean you're a false atheist, therefore you're just agnostic? it just becomes word salad, and pointless claim.

The problem is 1a contradicts 1b, being sceptical offers that it could be provable, which is in direct conflict with "impossible to know".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

ag·nos·tic
noun
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
adjective
4.of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5.asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6.holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

1. is the only relevant area here as I'm talking specifically about being agnostic towards a deity, not anything else.

How does you position relate to this? i really hope you don't think "I don't know" equates to "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown".

Next one:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

I don't get how your position of a lacking a belief atheist requires the addition of agnostic to clarify your position in any way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 06:22 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 05:11 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  That's my point. If you know then you will believe, so separating and then defining yourself as agnostic and atheist becomes pointless.
No, I'm of the mindset that agnosticism is trivial as it applies to almost any point on any topic because current knowledge will always be imperfect. That's why my personality would be more likely to take the stance, "based on this evidence, I know there is a god." Many people disagree with this though, and might be inclined to say, "the evidence is pointing to there being a god, but I don't know it is true for sure."

I've never seen a piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god though. I've only seen "evidence" that supports the fact that there are some things that we don't yet know, and may never know.

I agree with adding agnostic or gnostic to either atheist or theist is trivial, but obviously don't agree with it as a position towards a deity as we have no evidence to account for existence, without some sort of prime mover. Or we can believe existence (not the big bang) is infinite. It still goes beyond our potential realms of knowledge in my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: