Ask an Agnostic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2012, 06:46 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
Sup, Chiefs Fan?

Quote:Atheism is believing there is no god. And if you believe there is no god then you are an atheist.

Aye, there's the rub.

Some people say that Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.

But some people, as you have done, say that Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

If anyone can, right now, appreciate the difference between the two (without having to accept that one or the other is True), you will understand with 100% clarity why many Agnostics refuse to call themselves Atheist, why many people accuse Atheists of dogmatism, and why many people accuse Atheists of having their cake and eating it too.

It's the interchangeability of these two ideas, possibly due to colloquialism, shorthand, laziness, honesty, cultural evolution, whathaveyou, that is behind every single issue with the word Atheism.

This is also the rub with the quadratic model. It goes back to what I said before about the difference between "I don't know" and "I'm not sure". If one says that they BELIEVE that God may or may not exist, then they CANNOT KNOW if he exists. If one says that they BELIEVE that there is no God then they KNOW there is no God, they're just not 100 % SURE.

There is no God. That's both a statement of belief and knowledge.

Raisin Bran is my favourite cereal. That's both a statement of belief and knowledge. I can qualify it by saying, "Who knows? In a month someone might show me a granola cereal that I like better." But that's not me saying, "I don't know Raisin Bran is my favourite cereal," because I bloody well know that it is. It's simply me accepting that I shouldn't be certain about anything.

Now some people dismiss all of this because they say, "The dictionary says Atheism is a lack of belief, so anyone who says otherwise is wrong and or ignorant and or subversive." But this ignores four truths.

1 - That people do say and believe that Atheists believe there is no God
2 - That words can be polysemous (carry multiple meanings)
3 - That meaning evolves and is never static
4 - That dictionaries list different definitions of Atheist (the typical response to which that I hear is, "Those dictionaries are wrong," begging the question, "If dictionaries are not infallible, then how do you support your argument that we all simply have to believe the dictionary definition that you have selected?)

I'm not suggesting that any one definition is RIGHT. Right doesn't exist in Darwinism and language evolves. What I am suggesting is that all of these definitions exist, that they suggest and accomplish different things, and that all of the confusion and argument comes from the fact that this diversity, that simply exists and must be admitted to, has never been reconciled.

For myself, one of the reasons I don't call myself an Atheist is because many people believe that Atheists don't believe in God; therefore, if I introduced myself as an Atheist, many people would assume something about me that simply isn't true.

Quote:Which is more likely? That god does or doesn't exist?

I challenge the scientific basis of this bias.

Hey, Logica.

Quote: Theists make unfounded claims about God's existence. Pure atheists make unfounded claims about God's non-existence. But, since most atheists are actually "agnostic atheists", I think it is okay.

Huxley's rolling in his grave.

This is my problem with the idea of the Agnostic Atheist. I see it as a cover. It allows people to make unfounded claims, as you say, but then cover it up with, "but, I mean, who knows right?"

It's the way Fox does news. "Obama was born in Kenya, but, I mean, who knows right?"

It allows you to state things as True and convince others that it is True, without having a shred of evidence and when challenged, one can simple say, "Well I don't know, know, y'know?"

If you told someone, "There is no God," and they responded, "Is that true?" Would you respond, "Of course it is," or would you respond, "Actually I shouldn't have said that because no one actually knows?"

A true Agnostic, as I understand it and as I believe Huxley intended it, doesn't make the unfounded claim in the first place.

Hey, Chas.

The issue is this. Science only looks for natural explanations. So it should come as no shock to us that it has found, well, natural explanations.

The fact that the natural exists, for which there is incontrovertible evidence, makes no comment on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. It takes things out of the domain of the supernatural (the whole God of the gaps thing), but it doesn't disprove it. Again, I'm not saying that the supernatural exists, I'm just saying that as in all things, we have to be specific about what the data shows and never ever make suggestions that the data does not point to or for which there is no data. That is a hijacking and subversion of science. If we allow, "Good enough," to creep into science, we lose science. It becomes no better than the divine pronouncements of the God-king.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 06:48 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(17-07-2012 06:30 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(17-07-2012 06:11 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Troll. Big Grin
I didn't make him admit that he didn't know anything. ;D

Agnostic atheism is the belief that God does not exist, but that there are no facts to support the belief. Yet.
Now yer just making shit up. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
17-07-2012, 06:52 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(17-07-2012 06:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(17-07-2012 06:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  You've got that right, since I didn't. Dodgy
Ah, but you admitted to agnosticism. You know... Oh wait, I suppose you don't. Consider

(16-07-2012 10:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Agnostic means without knowledge. What useful question would I ask someone who doesn't know anything? Consider
Different context. That context was humor. Yes

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
17-07-2012, 06:52 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  For myself, one of the reasons I don't call myself an Atheist is because many people believe that Atheists don't believe in God; therefore, if I introduced myself as an Atheist, many people would assume something about me that simply isn't true.

So you're a theist. Why you gotta use so many words? Big Grin

Nah. One of the big things that gets overlooked is how little thought peeps put into their philosophy. You don't just define yourself as an agnostic, but rather delve into the wide ocean of agnosticism. I do the same with atheism. Everybody else? Buncha slackers. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
17-07-2012, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2012 07:08 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Logica.

Hey, Ghost.

(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Huxley's rolling in his grave.
He's dead, so no he isn't.

(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  This is my problem with the idea of the Agnostic Atheist. I see it as a cover. It allows people to make unfounded claims, as you say, but then cover it up with, "but, I mean, who knows right?"
You see a cover when a person admits that they do not have solid evidence, but then think it is perfectly okay for a person to say they have solid evidence when they really don't?

(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  It's the way Fox does news. "Obama was born in Kenya, but, I mean, who knows right?"
And that is fine in my book. As long as Fox makes it clear that they have absolutely no evidence to back their claim up.

(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  It allows you to state things as True and convince others that it is True, without having a shred of evidence and when challenged, one can simple say, "Well I don't know, know, y'know?"
And your point is? By your logic, an atheist or theist should not have the ability to attempt to convince anyone either, because they act as if they know something when they really don't.

(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  If you told someone, "There is no God," and they responded, "Is that true?" Would you respond, "Of course it is," or would you respond, "Actually I shouldn't have said that because no one actually knows?"
It is safe to say, "I don't think there is a God based on my own logic, but until it is proven or disproved, I will withhold absolute judgement."

(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  A true Agnostic, as I understand it and as I believe Huxley intended it, doesn't make the unfounded claim in the first place.
I am an agnostic atheist, and not an agnostic. This applies solely to the existence of a deity. I can, of course, attack assumptions made about a deity. The Bible is full of contradictions, so it is fully acceptable to say, "Well, the Christian God probably doesn't exist" or that "A deistic god is a more likely probability than the standard theistic one." That is because I am attacking specific claims about a specific being or set of beings.

(17-07-2012 06:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-07-2012 06:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Ah, but you admitted to agnosticism. You know... Oh wait, I suppose you don't. Consider 
Different context. That context was humor. Yes 

Well I think that you are willfully ignorant because you are an atheist. What? It is a different context under humor.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 07:10 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(17-07-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  This is also the rub with the quadratic model. It goes back to what I said before about the difference between "I don't know" and "I'm not sure". If one says that they BELIEVE that God may or may not exist, then they CANNOT KNOW if he exists. If one says that they BELIEVE that there is no God then they KNOW there is no God, they're just not 100 % SURE.

There is no God. That's both a statement of belief and knowledge.

For myself, one of the reasons I don't call myself an Atheist is because many people believe that Atheists don't believe in God; therefore, if I introduced myself as an Atheist, many people would assume something about me that simply isn't true.


Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I see a lot of ignoring that strong atheism vs weak atheism are non-existent differences. There is no God is a position of both belief and knowledge, which is in line with strong atheism while weak atheism is the non-knowledge basing claim.

I'm confused by what you are stating 100% sure on via knowledge. Gnosticism and the question of knowledge is on the grounds of considering what you think you know. One can think they know something and claim to have knowledge of it while not having absolute certainty. Some people may say they know there is life on other planets but don't think it is a certainty of 100%.. I would say Believe there is life on other planets but remain gnostic and skeptical of the reality; Even with the high mathematical probability.

I understand how you wouldn't want to consider calling yourself atheist to people in general, but I don't see that as a strong reason to abandon the term. That's a large part of what movement of positive atheism via several organizations, Seth included, is trying to take care of.. that stigma of the term atheist being mistreated and mis-characterized.

Dictionaries also list that Atheism means immoral.. Not many and it's being removed but I have seen heard of it, then looked it up and seen it listed. My Webesters I have right on my computer desk has Ungodlessness, Wickeness listed as it's 2nd definition of Atheism... and looking up what the hell the dictionary exactly means by wickedness leads me to find it means being morally bad.

I don't mind that you see it as still an issue but there's a lot beneficial to disguising the actual term atheism. You ought to still do the same for agnostisim and I'll admit I'm quick to brush off Huxley even though he invented... but that's because I dislike how implied atheism as the strong atheism position.

Huxley isn't just not rolling in his grave, if he were buried, because he is dead... he is also fully composed into a pile of dry bones and has been for awhile.

"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
17-07-2012, 07:47 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
Hey, Logico.

Quote:You see a cover when a person admits that they do not have solid
evidence, but then think it is perfectly okay for a person to say they
have solid evidence when they really don't?

Uh, what?

ALL BEFORE "THEN": I'm talking about a somewhat weak admittance after the fact.
ALL AFTER "THEN": I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life said anything of the like.

Quote:And that is fine in my book. As long as Fox makes it clear that they have absolutely no evidence to back their claim up.

It's abhorrent in my book, as well as manipulative and Fox never makes it clear that they have no evidence.

The use of this tactic in mass media is tantamount to a crime in my book.

Quote:And your point is? By your logic, an atheist or theist should not have
the ability to attempt to convince anyone either, because they act as if
they know something when they really don't.

You answered your own question.

Quote:I can, of course, attack assumptions made about a deity.

That's neither here nor there.

Hey, Clyde.

Quote:I understand how you wouldn't want to consider calling yourself atheist
to people in general, but I don't see that as a strong reason to abandon
the term.

Like I said. It's ONE of the reasons Cool

Quote:...but that's because I dislike how implied atheism as the strong atheism position.

His critique is of the strong Atheism position and that is what he was reacting to. It's also why he abandoned all credos. But he, as far as I know, did not blanket ALL Atheists. Just the ones that were cheesing him off Cool

To both of you.

Really? You both bring terribly unfunny "dead people don't roll" rebuttals? Man. Lighten up. Let a nigga use an expression, Buzz Killington lol

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 08:04 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2012 08:09 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(17-07-2012 07:47 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Logico.
'Sup.

(17-07-2012 07:47 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Uh, what?

ALL BEFORE "THEN": I'm talking about a somewhat weak admittance after the fact.
ALL AFTER "THEN": I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life said anything of the like.

Then why are you here?

(17-07-2012 07:47 AM)Ghost Wrote:  It's abhorrent in my book, as well as manipulative and Fox never makes it clear that they have no evidence.

The use of this tactic in mass media is tantamount to a crime in my book.

Precisely. It is disgusting because they, Fox, do not make it clear. They act like they do know. I don't, and while I can easily judge the Bible, or the average Creationist explanation, I cannot face a deist and tell them, in good conscience, that their deity does not exist. There is no evidence indicating that a deity does or does not exist, and while it is fun to poke fun at the thought, and to attack the things that have already been disproved by conventional means, I reserve my judgement on the actual possibility of a deity.

(17-07-2012 07:47 AM)Ghost Wrote:  You answered your own question.

Again, why are you here?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
Deism is absurd. Just sayin'. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
17-07-2012, 08:12 AM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
Logico.

I see your why am I here and raise you a what the fuck are you talking about?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: