The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Agnosticism transcends sauce
Apothe0sis
Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered User regular
Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered User regular
Because the chat thread doesn't like it.
The basic contention to be discussed is this: Agnostics are unlike their atheist counterparts, inconsistent in their epistemology. We dismiss existential claims everyday due to a lack of evidence - from "my flatmate is at home" to "you are legally obliged to provide me with ten hojillion Ugandan dollars". Agnostics are no exception However, they do not follow this maxim in the case of deities, and yet cannot provide compelling reason for this exemption. Hence, agnostics are total berks.
The basic contention to be discussed is this: Agnostics are unlike their atheist counterparts, inconsistent in their epistemology. We dismiss existential claims everyday due to a lack of evidence - from "my flatmate is at home" to "you are legally obliged to provide me with ten hojillion Ugandan dollars". Agnostics are no exception However, they do not follow this maxim in the case of deities, and yet cannot provide compelling reason for this exemption. Hence, agnostics are total berks.
Apothe0sis on
0
Posts
In all seriousness, I really have no arguments, at all, to back my stance on religion, so I'm here to take notes.
If you can't define something then there's no judgements to be made. If it cannot be defineid then there isn't even a concept for the judgements to "hook onto" and the equivalent of atheism the only viable option.
Atheists don't claim to know everything, so what evs. It isn't clear to me what in the hell it is that agnostics are open to. Believing in something with no evidence is Theism. Being open to anything you have evidence for is certainly compatible with Atheism. There isn't an intelligible third position here.
On the contrary; we dismiss existential claims due to the presence of contradictory evidence.
If you say "my flatmate is at home" and I go to your flat and he's not there, that's contradictory evidence. Same thing if you provide legal evidence contradicting my claim that you owe me ten hojillion ugandan dollars.
With claims that don't have directly contradictory evidence, such as "the sun will come up tomorrow", I assume that the sun will come up tomorrow, because that's tremendously likely, but I accept the possibility that it won't.
I don't see how my position as an agnostic is inconsistent in any way.
I don't insist on the superiority of anything. You believe what you want to believe, I don't give a shit.
How would you like it if I lumped you in with other "militant atheists"?
I think you have your definitions wrong here. Atheists believe specifically in the nonexistance of God. Agnostics believe that it's impossible to tell. For some, it's personal, as in "it's impossible for me to know if God exists". For some, it's applied to everybody, as in "it's impossible for anybody to know if God exists."
I like to think most of us fall into the first category.
I think it's naive to assume that we, with our 5 little senses, perceive enough to understand anything anywhere close to the entire nature of reality. I believe there's a ton of shit we're missing, but that all faith-based religions are artificial.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
That is not contradictory evidence, that is a lack of positive evidence - it is only because you don't see evidence of his being there that you dismiss my claim. You do not see him, you do not hear him, your do not bump into him.
I have no idea why you're bringing up what's possible (with your sun point) - I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean logically possible, then yes, you are correct but your point is banal. If you mean nomologically possible, then your point is interesting but your are mistaken.
I've never understood agnosticism to be defined in that manner. I always thought it to be more of the 'it is impossible to know if god(s) exist and their presence or absence has no impact on my life, so it doesn't matter. Now bugger off with your philosophical circljerks, you (a)theists.' tack. Athiests don't declare to know if god(s) exist, they just default to skepticism over any answer barring evidence to support the claim. Agnostics just couldn't give two shits what the answer is.
a·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Contradictory evidence doesn't exist in the first place to even be an issue; the primary concern is falsifiable evidence. Which also doesn't exist. That's what the premise is based on. When falsifiable evidence for metaphysical phenomena exists then shit changes. Same as when any new evidence comes about.
It's a bit like insisting that "baby eater" is a valid definition of Liberal because some people use the term that way.
I guess I don't really understand your point, then.
If I go to your flat, and I don't see your roommate, then I would assume that he's not there. Of course, philosophically, I would allow for the possibility that he is there, but that I can't perceive him for some reason. Practically, though, this is unlikely, so if I was on the phone with you, I'd say "nope, he's not here."
I live my life according to what's practical and what's observable. But philosophically, I always allow for the possibility that there's more out there than I can perceive. I don't see what is inconsistent about my position.
You can say that it's wrong, if you want, or that you disagree. That's fine. But there's nothing inconsistent about it.
Thank you, Noah Webster. Do you have a point?
Yeah.
I would classify myself as an atheist-agnostic.
In that case, please provide the true definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic", and provide a neutral source.
It'll have to be pretty convincing, because the dictionary says you're wrong.
There's a fundamental difference between the claim "My flatmate is not at home," and the claim "there is no X anywhere." The first is a limited claim about a specific place and time. You could search the entire flat and conclude that your roommate was not there. By contrast, it is impossible to search the set of places and times in which a supernatural being could exist.
Making the claim, "There is no God anywhere," with what evidence exists is more like searching a finite number of rooms in an infinitely large apartment, and concluding that your roommate is not there.
I've made my position clear. If you want to call it "atheism", fine. Is there something wrong with my actual position, or do you merely object to my usage of the word "agnosticism". Because if that's your whole beef, you're being pretty pedantic.
You said "Athiests don't declare to know if god(s) exist"
The definition of Atheism contradicts your statement.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Ok ok, lame yes, but my point is that once this argument goes off the road into the woods, it becomes apparent that there are always assumptions being made, and in terms of reason there are fundamental first principles from which everything else logically derives. In mathematical terms, these are axioms, and cannot be proven independent from themselves.
If there are fundamental principles of the universe in a form comprehensible to us, then logic affords us no better than a guess at them. I see nothing better than a heuristic for making affirmative statements about such matters.
Don't make me bust out my box analogy. I'll have to rethink it since search is down.
Good for you. You know where you stand. This is important.
Many atheists and agnostics do not know why they stand in either camp. I think either is fine, as long as you acknowledge why you believe so and accept the implications of such a belief. If you take responsibility for it, than you win and you are correct in your beliefs.
(Two right answers? WHAAAAAAT?)
Yes. A belief in all possibilities and a belief in a finite number possibilities. Both are acceptable.
Edit: I should clarify. Both are acceptable in the face of human fallibility. We cannot determine at this point if possibility is truly infinite or finite.
I do however agree that any god that came from the human imagination is artificial. I stand on the side of finite possibility that we may learn to bend with time. I consider that position to be atheist.
What I'm saying is, "I don't know if God exists or not" is not a harmful thing to believe and is therefore unlikely to draw the criticism of what you call "militant atheists". I used to be an agnostic, but over the years I solidified my atheism, through my own research and exploration and introspection. These days I think agnostics are kind of silly, but whatever, some of them will come around eventually. And I don't think there's no point trying to engage them because, if most agnostics are like I was, they are not likely to be persuaded by people from the internet.
What I'm saying is, agnosticism is pretty much the most pointless thing to get angry at, ever.
Is this making sense? I'm really fucking stoned.
No it doesn't.
Atheists believe there are no dieties. They DECLARE to know that god(s) do not exist.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I just realized that this is a really important distinction, because every agnostic I've met has had his or her own unique reasons for being agnostic. I don't know what your experiences are, I don't know anything about you, but you probably have your own independent reasoning on the subject that make perfect sense to you. That doesn't bother me at all because I see "does god exist" as a largely irrelevant question with no real answer. My concern is with the dogma and hate that arises from some people's belief in imaginary things.
This is a really important point, because I think this is the main reason it's not really feasible to make generalizations about agnostics.
Except that it doesn't. The definition of atheism precludes the existence of god based on the lack of falsifiable evidence. Change the existing evidence and you change the outcome of the belief structure. If Jesus were to come down on a fiery chariot and slap Bill Donahue, live, on national television then athiests would believe that Jesus exists. As things stand, everyone just silently hopes for this to happen.
So, given what I've said in this thread, and what you see quoted in Shurakai's post in this thread, what does that make me?
They aren't incompatible positions. I'm not a particular fan (this is an understatement) of mushy relativists and post-modernists, and I suspect that's the breed of agnostic that gets pilloried.
I'm also not a particular fan of the political agnostic who's thoughts more realistically resemble those of an atheist (and/or an atheist/agnostic, like myself), but don't want to participate in any sort of dialog because it makes them uncomfortable. These are also the people who conflate people like me and Richard Dawkins with fundamentalists. Apathetic agnostics and atheists tend to fall in or near this camp as well, and I feel similarly about them. They tend to have a facile understanding of individuals involved in debates.