Ask an Agnostic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(14-07-2012 07:51 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Define a god and in almost all cases, that god can be proven not to exist. Be it through inconsistencies in the characterization of that god (self-contradiction) or by inconsistencies with known facts about the universe. One can prove that the God of the Bible is false by showing the Bible itself to be inaccurate in that it both contradicts itself and contradicts natural laws (flat earth, etc).

Discount the Bible and you are no longer dealing with the Christian God, but the God that a particular person has invented in their own mind. To be honest, nearly all Christians already redefine God in their own terms and have different concepts of God - just look at Kingsy and how different he is from most Christians, or how there are hundreds/thousands of denominations of Christians. To prove that God false, you simply need to get them to commit to what defines their God - if they claim it is the Bible, your work is easy, but they'll probably shift the goalposts on you and modify the Bible's definition of God. They'll just say you're interpreting it wrong, it actually means this: (insert completely fabricated explanation that is impossible to get from just reading the text) or "it's a metaphor" (again, without any reason to believe this is the case from reading the text).

IMO, claiming to be an agnostic both makes you seem intellectually lazy and ignorant of what the terms mean. Regardless of who first coined the term, as is mentioned by ClydeLee, the prefix "a" means "without" and "theism" means "belief in a deity" (in a very simplistic way of defining things). Agnosticism is only a claim as to whether knowledge can be known for certain or not. Some famous non-theists go by the term of agnostic (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) for the same reason as you, but I think it's simply because they've misunderstood the definition or they're too cowardly to identify as atheist and possibly deal with negative reactions from the public (which is also ignorant of the definitions).
Nothing cowardly in saying you don't know what you don't know! If you choose to limit your knowledge within the parameters of historical conjecture and scieintism.....well thats fine. Neil de Grasse Tyson is smart enough not to get sucked in by the definiens / Drinking Beverage definiendum trap.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mr Woof's post
14-07-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(14-07-2012 06:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-07-2012 06:08 PM)morondog Wrote:  LOL Big Grin Ain't that the truth. Say the word agnosticism and he shall appear Tongue
I think the proper incantation requires referring to Ghost as an atheist. Even though he is without belief in god, he is insulted by being identified so. Consider
We don't take kindly to Mr. Thomas Huxley around here. Sure he coined the term Agnostic but it doesn't give ground to his position of what atheism is or isn't. There is no gnosticism implied within atheism and let's keep it that way. Drinking Beverage

"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
14-07-2012, 08:15 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(14-07-2012 08:04 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(14-07-2012 06:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think the proper incantation requires referring to Ghost as an atheist. Even though he is without belief in god, he is insulted by being identified so. Consider
We don't take kindly to Mr. Thomas Huxley around here. Sure he coined the term Agnostic but it doesn't give ground to his position of what atheism is or isn't. There is no gnosticism implied within atheism and let's keep it that way. Drinking Beverage
Why? Thought this was the thinking atheist forum........not the A.F.A. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2012 08:39 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Ask an Agnostic




You rang?

Hey, Chas.

Actually the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for the non-existence of God is non-existent. I can see how you'd confuse the two Cool

Also, while I am without belief in God, I am also without disbelief in God. Any charactarisation of me must contain the full vastness of my greatness Tongue

Hey, Peaceful.

We are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo on the same page lol.

It is problematic. But at it's core, one must simply accept that there are simply a diversity of definitions of Atheism. Such is cultural diversity.

DEFINITION 1
-An Atheist is anyone who is not a Theist; ie, someone that does not explicitly believe in theos for whatever reason.
-An Atheist = a not-Theist

By this definition, you and I both are Atheists. This is the definition from whence came the notion, "Atheism makes no positive statements and is simply the lack of belief." This, of course, is true. I'll go out on a limb and assume that neither of us owns a Jaguar XJ12. This fact makes no positive statement. We could not own one for any number of reasons. Doesn't matter which of those reasons it is. You and I are both AJaguarists.

The problem with this definition is that most languages do not define things by what they are not, but rather by what they are.

DEFINITION 2
The Cartesian Graph

In this definition, there are two dichotomies: Atheist-Theist, Gnostic-Agnostic. Non-belief-belief. Knowledge-no knowledge. The first is your Y axis, the second your X.

In this definition one is either:
Gnositc Atheist
Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist

The problem with this definition is that the reference to Gnosticism is seen, by many scholars, as retarded.

The larger problem is that on any Cartesian graph, you may have the coordinates (0,0). This particular model does not account for the zero position. My belief is that you and I fall into the zero position.

DEFINITION 3
The Dawkins scale.

On the Dawkins scale #4 is a pure Agnostic. I don't know. This is a position that is impossible on the Cartesian graph and irrelevant to the not-Theist definition. But it's what Agnostics are.

Dawkins makes no mention of Gnosticism but instead refers to strong and weak. Some people have since co-opted the model and included the Gnosticism-Agnosticism dichotomy, falsely.





DEFINITION 4
Thomas Henry Huxley

Oddly enough, the man who coined the term Agnostic gets very little love. Some people might point out "Agnosticism existed before Huxley." Sure. And gravity existed before Newton. But don't revise history to suggest that people operated with the same understanding we enjoy today.

For Huxley, he encountered many Atheists who made the positive statement, "God does not exist." He felt that they were just as dogmatic as Theists. Note: he did not suggest that all Atheists make this statement.

Quote: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.

So basically, if it's proven one way or the other, great. If it has not been proven or if it can't be proven, then stop pretending like you know.

The God question falls handily into the not proven category and more contentiously into the indemonstrable category.

The logic was that neither Theists nor the dogmatic Atheists he knew applied this method. They both pretended that something was certain when there was no evidence. Thus, by this definition of Agnosticism, Agnostics were separated from both Theists and Atheists.

DEFINITION 5
The missing one.

Some Atheists make the positive statement, "There is no God." I do not make that statement and never will, so I cannot reasonably be put in the same category as them.

Some people admit to categories of Atheism like anti-Theist or humanist. Others compare the attempt to categorise types of Atheism with herding cats.

There are some Atheists that believe that there is no place for God in this universe, that everything has a material explanation. They are Naturalists.

There SHOULD be a definition for these people; like Naturalist for example. But since when is should respected?

The reason that this definition is fought tooth and nail is because at it's heart, Atheism is a protest movement. It is a rejection of something. There are those that say that Atheism is the default position, but in order to call one's self an Atheist, one has to have knowledge of the thing they are rejecting. Otherwise, while they might technically be Atheists under definition 1, they would have no understanding of what they were.

One of the chief complaints leveled against Theism by Atheists is that Theism is dogmatic. It trusts in faith and revelation. It laughs in the face of evidence. But as Huxley points out, someone who believes that God does not exist, is in fact dogmatic. So by denying and attacking this definition, they protect themselves from that accusation. They throw up shields like, "Well I'm an Agnostic Atheist. There is no God, I mean, come on, you're retarded if you think otherwise, but I don't 'really' know." That's like saying, "I'm having a baby boy, but I don't 'really' know." No. You know. You've decided. Without evidence. Now man up and admit it.

It bothers me in particular when people in the same breath say there is no God and that Atheism makes no positive statements. Drives me fucking batty really.

This is the disingenuousness that you're alluding to. It is the have your cake and eat it too side of Atheism.





The difficulty is that there is such a morass of definition, that anyone using any of these definitions basically has an escape hatch. So what I try to do is say this. If Atheism is not-Theist, then I'm an Atheist. I don't self-identify as such but it's true by definition. If Atheism in any way claims that there is no God, I am not an Atheist. I don't believe in the Cartesian graph model or the use of the term Gnostic. I like the Dawkins scale just fine and I self-define as an Agnostic; Huxlian if you will. I vigorously apply a single principle to everything; I don't pretend anything is certain when it has not been demonstrated or if it's indemonstrable.

DEFINITION 6
Mine's right, yours is wrong, nanny nanny poo poo.

This is the definition where someone says that theirs is right and all others are wrong.

"I think this."
"Well fuck you, you stupid retarded dum dum poop face, you're wrong and stupid and dum and junk."

They would never go so far as to admit that these other definitions exist and are in use and that those are demonstrable facts. Ho ho noooooooooo. They just deny their existence.

At the end of the day, definition is ideological. Some people can see that, others cannot.

With these people, meh, chyagonnado?

So to sum up:
Definition 1: Atheist = not-Theist. No such thing as an Agnostic.
Definition 2: There are only Agnostic and Gnostic Atheists (but Gnostic Atheists are dumb so really, there's only Agnostic Atheists).
Definition 3: An Agnostic is simply a #4 (Yay! I get to be myself!)
Definition 4: Give me evidence or give me death. Agnostics are neither Theists nor Atheists and there's some dogmatic Atheists out there. (Yay! I get to be myself!)
Definition 5: Atheism makes no positive statement but Atheists do all the time so can we please find some way to differentiate the two? No? Oh and I'm an asshole for suggesting it? Very well. Carry on (ya fuckin pricks)
Definition 6:



Lastly, this was the runner up video for the summoning gag.





ON EDIT:

Hey, Azaraith.

Quote:IMO, claiming to be an agnostic both makes you seem intellectually lazy
and ignorant of what the terms mean. Regardless of who first coined the
term, as is mentioned by ClydeLee, the prefix "a" means "without" and
"theism" means "belief in a deity" (in a very simplistic way of defining
things). Agnosticism is only a claim as to whether knowledge can be
known for certain or not. Some famous non-theists go by the term of
agnostic (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) for the same reason as you, but I
think it's simply because they've misunderstood the definition or
they're too cowardly to identify as atheist and possibly deal with
negative reactions from the public (which is also ignorant of the
definitions).

Thank you for calling me lazy, ignorant and cowardly. Oh, and that I misunderstand things <cough, definition 6, cough cough>. You may do the following at your leisure



.

ON SECOND EDIT:

The notion that the coining of a phrase is irrelevant because there was pre-existing language is ridiculous. Like just straight up ridiculous.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Ghost's post
14-07-2012, 08:37 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(14-07-2012 08:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  You rang?

Hey, Chas.

Actually the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for the non-existence of God is non-existent. I can see how you'd confuse the two Cool

Also, while I am without belief in God, I am also without disbelief in God. Any charactarisation of me must contain the full vastness of my greatness Tongue
I knew the incantation would work. Thumbsup

I don't consider evolution as particularly strong evidence for the non-existence of a god. Evil and suffering however; now we've got good evidence against the existence of any non-malevolent god.

As I have said, atheist simply means without belief and you don't have belief. You just don't like the connotations and associations of the word.

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
14-07-2012, 08:41 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
Whadda mean, Gnostic atheists are stupid? Why, I oughta... 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
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
14-07-2012, 08:42 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(14-07-2012 08:04 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(14-07-2012 07:51 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Define a god and in almost all cases, that god can be proven not to exist. Be it through inconsistencies in the characterization of that god (self-contradiction) or by inconsistencies with known facts about the universe. One can prove that the God of the Bible is false by showing the Bible itself to be inaccurate in that it both contradicts itself and contradicts natural laws (flat earth, etc).

Discount the Bible and you are no longer dealing with the Christian God, but the God that a particular person has invented in their own mind. To be honest, nearly all Christians already redefine God in their own terms and have different concepts of God - just look at Kingsy and how different he is from most Christians, or how there are hundreds/thousands of denominations of Christians. To prove that God false, you simply need to get them to commit to what defines their God - if they claim it is the Bible, your work is easy, but they'll probably shift the goalposts on you and modify the Bible's definition of God. They'll just say you're interpreting it wrong, it actually means this: (insert completely fabricated explanation that is impossible to get from just reading the text) or "it's a metaphor" (again, without any reason to believe this is the case from reading the text).

IMO, claiming to be an agnostic both makes you seem intellectually lazy and ignorant of what the terms mean. Regardless of who first coined the term, as is mentioned by ClydeLee, the prefix "a" means "without" and "theism" means "belief in a deity" (in a very simplistic way of defining things). Agnosticism is only a claim as to whether knowledge can be known for certain or not. Some famous non-theists go by the term of agnostic (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) for the same reason as you, but I think it's simply because they've misunderstood the definition or they're too cowardly to identify as atheist and possibly deal with negative reactions from the public (which is also ignorant of the definitions).
Nothing cowardly in saying you don't know what you don't know! If you choose to limit your knowledge within the parameters of historical conjecture and scieintism.....well thats fine. Neil de Grasse Tyson is smart enough not to get sucked in by the definiens / Drinking Beverage definiendum trap.

I'm not saying that being an agnostic atheist is cowardly, I'm saying claiming you're an agnostic and avoiding the term atheist is cowardly. I'm an agnostic atheist myself - to the point that the concept of a god in general cannot be completely disproven (deism, etc). Tyson may not want to deal with the issue, but IMO it's a matter of cowardice or laziness. You can explain your ideas more fully and not come across as claiming absolute knowledge that there is no possible god, but agnosticism is a weak cover and is chosen mostly to avoid the stigma of the word "atheist" and due to misconceptions of what the words actually mean.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 08:48 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2012 08:53 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Ask an Agnostic
Hey, Chas.

You're right. Evolution has SFA to do with the non-existence of God. How you got that from what I wrote is beyond me though lol.

Also, on a personal level, I don't care about religious definitions of God. They could all be right, all be wrong, or somewhere in between, who cares, I don't owe any allegiance to any denomination. But if a doctrinal definition of God proves false, it says nothing about the existence of God. For example, if I say my penis exists and it can fire lightning bolts (hello ladies Cool ), a notion that is demonstrably false, it says nothing of the existence of my penis. Lightning or no, it exists. Bible, Gita, Qur'an or no, God either exists or doesn't (but simultaneously exists and doesn't exist until we know muahahahahahahahaha!!!).

Quote:As I have said, atheist simply means without belief and you don't have
belief. You just don't like the connotations and associations of the
word.

Definition 1 with a soupcon of definition 6 Cool

Hey, Cantor.

Don't kill the messenger brother Cool I should have put that in "ironic hipster quotations".

Hey, Azaraith.

Put down that puny shovel of yours and use this. It'll allow you to dig your hole much faster!





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 08:49 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
All that talk and not a single mention of freethought

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
14-07-2012, 09:06 PM
RE: Ask an Agnostic
(14-07-2012 08:48 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

You're right. Evolution has SFA to do with the non-existence of God. How you got that from what I wrote is beyond me though lol.
Well, you said:
Quote:Actually the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for
the non-existence of God is non-existent. I can see how you'd confuse
the two [Image: cool.gif]
I took that as saying I confused the two. What did you mean?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: