The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2017, 01:12 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(21-11-2017 11:03 PM)Aerika Wrote:  I'm an agnostic atheist but I'm more agnostic than atheist.
That's like saying you are more human than animal, or more curry lover than food lover, or perhaps you like action movies more than you like movies.

Agnostic is just a flavour of atheism.
If you don't know if gods exist, then you probably don't believe in the existence of gods.
A person that doesn't believe in the existence of gods can be given the label Atheist. They can wear this label at the same time as the label of Agnostic and these labels often complement each other.

Don't confuse things by assuming that Atheist means you have a believe that gods don't exist. That is only a small subset of atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
25-11-2017, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2017 01:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 11:25 AM)srobertanv Wrote:  
(24-11-2017 11:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. Common amateur error.
Guilty, I'm using statistical language in an amateurish way.
Prop A: There's a canteloupe in my refrigerator.
Prop B: There's no canteloupe in my refrigerator.
Mutually exclusive propositions, assuming canteloupe, my, and refrigeraton are all reasonably defined. We could get all bogged down in whether a half a canteloupe counts, or whether a musk melon is the same as a canteloupe, or if an ice chest counts as a refrigerator. Or whether the refrigerator is rightfully mine. That sort of thing can go on forever.
When I said 50/50. I merely meant that A and B have an equal chance of being true and an equal chance of being false.
Incidentally, I have no idea whether or not there's a canteloupe in my refrigerator right at this moment. I'm totally agnostic between those two propositions. I am NOT a canteloupe atheist.
(24-11-2017 11:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have none, and therefore it's NOT 50/50. It's undefined until you have data. Saying it's 50/50 is a dishonest ruse. ... ... all it is, is a fake pretend agnosticism, that claims a probability that has no basis at all.
No reason accuse me of dishonesty. The proposition that there could have existed an entity that could reasonably be labelled a god, is for me as likely true, as false in the absence of data. That's all I mean by 50/50.
Something about this entire thread reminds me of Lewis Carrol:
QUOTATION: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Yeah I know. It's difficult when one is asked to be precise with the words they use, and define what it is they are talking about.

Define for us, coherently, what your definition of a deity is, which you say has a 50/50 probability of being true or false.

The cantelope example is the fallacy of the false analogy.
A cantelope is a well defined, known entity. Most of us have seen one. The gods are not. There is no coherent definition of a deity that comports with any possible reality that we know of.
The concept of "god" has no more validity than Pink Sparkly Unicorns.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-11-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(22-11-2017 12:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no coherent definition of a "god". It does not *even* merit ANY consideration at all. None. One also cannot prove there are no Pink Sparkly unicorns. Do I need to take a position towards them ? It makes no sense, (and none is required) to take a position with respect to an incoherent, undefined notion. Saying I take a formal position with respect to an incoherent undefined idea gives THAT idea far more credit and grants it a validity it does not merit.

The classical definition of agnosticism ("it is not *even* possible") for us to know if there is a god(s), makes more sense.
The most coherent position to take is that if ignostic, which means you recognise that the claim itself is insufficiently formulated and thus not worthy of evaluatation or consideration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
25-11-2017, 01:22 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 01:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-11-2017 12:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no coherent definition of a "god". It does not *even* merit ANY consideration at all. None. One also cannot prove there are no Pink Sparkly unicorns. Do I need to take a position towards them ? It makes no sense, (and none is required) to take a position with respect to an incoherent, undefined notion. Saying I take a formal position with respect to an incoherent undefined idea gives THAT idea far more credit and grants it a validity it does not merit.

The classical definition of agnosticism ("it is not *even* possible") for us to know if there is a god(s), makes more sense.
The most coherent position to take is that if ignostic, which means you recognise that the claim itself is insufficiently formulated and thus not worthy of evaluatation or consideration.

Exactly, which is really what I identify as. Thumbsup
The entire proposition/discussion is dismissed.
I didn't want to muddy the waters with another term.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2017, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2017 04:26 PM by srobertanv.)
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 01:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Define for us, coherently, what your definition of a deity is, which you say has a 50/50 probability of being true or false.
OK. I'll invent one. Let's call him 'Bucky'. (Bucky is not his name. It's just what I'll call him for convenience. The Bucky that can be named is not the true Bucky.)

define Bucky: The conscious entity, or entities, whose actions in pursuit of an unknown purpose brought about the existence of the known universe.

That definition doesn't tell us much about Bucky or what his purpose is. It doesn't specify whether or not he's more intelligent than the life forms that arise in the universe he created, or whether he's benevolent, or whether the universe is intentional or an accidental side effect of his pursuits. It doesn't say whether or not Bucky cares about being worshiped. But he's defined well enough to speculate about his existence. And his alleged creation is grand enough that Bucky can rightly be called a deity or a god.

Could the known universe exist because of Bucky? Yep.
Could the known universe exist without Bucky existing? Yep.
Is one answer more likely than the other? Nope. Not until we can get some evidence. Is Bucky's existence falsifiable? I don't think so. I can't imagine any observable evidence that would refute Bucky's existence. At least not currently. Perhaps someone at some future point in time could suggest how Bucky's existence is exclusively consistent with what we are able to observe, but for now, it's not falsifiable. But wait, maybe the proposition of Bucky's non-existence could be falsified. If only Bucky would show up in a burning bush, or on my french toast, then I could know for sure. Until then I'm agnostic on the existence of Bucky. (Not you, the other one.)

Some choose to define "atheism" in a way that suggest, that merely my lack of belief in Bucky is atheistic. Others choose the definition that says atheists are those who accept the proposition that 'Bucky doesn't exist.'. The definitions are somewhat arbitrary, but they do lump groups of people together differently.

You and I essentially agree. We just define the terms differently to either avoid, or encourage, being lumped together with some other people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2017, 06:01 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 04:15 PM)srobertanv Wrote:  define Bucky: The conscious entity, or entities, whose actions in pursuit of an unknown purpose brought about the existence of the known universe.


Could the known universe exist because of Bucky? Yep.
Do you know of one instance where a conscious entity is known to have created a universe?

Do you know by what mechanism a conscious entity can create energy/matter let alone an entire universe of the stuff?

If the universe is the entirety of the energy and matter, then what is this conscious entity made of, before it created the universe? Do you know of any conscious entities made of this stuff?

If you don't have plausible answers to all of the above, then how do you know it is possible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
25-11-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 04:15 PM)srobertanv Wrote:  The conscious entity, or entities, whose actions in pursuit of an unknown purpose brought about the existence of the known universe.

........ aaaaand you can stop right there. I knew you had no coherent notion of a god.
Actions, consciousness, "in pursuit of " ..... "brought about" .... "came into existence' ALL presume, and the words employed, and meaningless without time a priori in place. Spacetime is a property of the very (??created) universe you invoke to define your god(s). There is not one example know to us of a consciousness in the absence of a healthy brain. The definition is absurd.

Unless you can demonstrate that spacetime is a property of what is not this universe, (congratulations on your Nobel), you can employ no word in your definition that invokes a temporal concept.

Carroll schools Craig on this very proble :




Then there is the problem of the primacy of "existence". If that god you attempt to define "exists", it's participation in Reality is REQUIRED. The real problem is not even addressed in your definition.
The definition given above is incoherent.
Oh well.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-11-2017, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2017 10:23 PM by srobertanv.)
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 06:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-11-2017 04:15 PM)srobertanv Wrote:  The conscious entity, or entities, whose actions in pursuit of an unknown purpose brought about the existence of the known universe.

........ aaaaand you can stop right there. I knew you had no coherent notion of a god.
....
The definition given above is incoherent.
Oh well.
It's coherent if you stop making assumptions about what was stated.
I never said that Bucky had to exist prior to the Big Bang. Only that the known universe, i.e. the part we can sense, is created by him, either on purpose, or as a side effect. I'm not arguing that it's true. But it's certainly coherent.
My central point originally in this thread was that the definition of "atheism" is in dispute.
To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy site again:
Quote:“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

What it is about that definition that makes the posters to this site so angry?
Maybe Humpty had it right: “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2017, 10:53 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2017 09:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 10:18 PM)srobertanv Wrote:  It's coherent if you stop making assumptions about what was stated.

The statement IS the definition. It's incoherent. IF you meant to be more precise, amend the definition. You used words that have specific meanings. No one is "making assumptions" about anything. The words you used have mean something. There IS no theistic system that says the god that created the universe came into existence with the Big Bang.

Quote:I never said that Bucky had to exist prior to the Big Bang. Only that the known universe, i.e. the part we can sense, is created by him, either on purpose, or as a side effect. I'm not arguing that it's true. But it's certainly coherent.


It's incoherent. A creator has to intend and then ACT. Simultaneous to the Big Bang is meaningless. The Big Bang in cosmology is the expansionary epoch. The big Bang says nothing about origins or beginnings.
LOL. That's even worse and it does not meet your original definition. .
"Him" ..... LOL. So now your god has circulating testosterone, and other male accouterments.
Obviously you're quite the beginner with all this stuff.
*Pats on head* .... be happy with your incoherent 50/50. Now run outside and play.

Quote:My central point originally in this thread was that the definition of "atheism" is in dispute.

Stanford is not the authority on atheism. Your assertion about atheism is nothing but an opinion.
Buncha stuffy old philosophers who STILL try to insist that the default position is theism. How absurd.

Quote:To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy site again:

If you HAVE to Facepalm

Quote:“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

False. No references, no polls, no nothing. That quote assumes atheism somehow derives it's meaning from the denial of theism. That is simply wrong. Stanford may be able to say what a group of philosopher's opinions are with regard to atheism, but they CANNOT tell anyone what they think. Theism is dismissed as incoherent. It has no more value than the undefined notion than Pink Sparkly Unicorns created the universe. Theism requires no formal stance *against it*. It's dismissed with all other undefined incoherent ideas. It's like saying the color white is white because it's *not black*. It simply is what it is, and is in no way dependent on any other color. Atheism cannot be defined in terms of theism. There are thousands of gods, all with different properties and strange notions. There would have to be the same number of atheisms. Theism is not the "default-goto" position, no matter what the old fellas at Stanford cook up.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-11-2017, 07:49 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(25-11-2017 01:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Agnostic is just a flavour of atheism.

I have to disagree with this. As a lifelong atheist, I've never once said that I don't know if God or gods exist. They don't. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:Don't confuse things by assuming that Atheist means you have a believe that gods don't exist. That is only a small subset of atheists.

Again I disagree. There is no such thing as a small "subset" of atheists. You're either an atheist or you're not. Simple dichotomy. No degrees involved.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: