Ask an agnostic...

[C~G]

Maybe it can, and we just haven't figured it out yet; or maybe it's just that a better process than logic is needed, but another entirely mundane explanation is viable. Or maybe there IS something else, it just isn't [a] God.

Getting to God by what we don't know IS, in the end, an appeal to ignorance. It requires a leap of faith, and has too few substance to it. See, the manner you are employing to keep the concept of God viable is by butchering any meaningful dennotation it has. I wonder if the God you are advocating would satisfy the believers.

Tsk, Tsk Fred.
The bolded part is leap of faith.
I'm sorry but your logic is also fallible.

And it should be: Getting to "anything" what we don't know IS, in the end, an appeal to ignorance.
So therefore your implying that there isn't a God is as much of product of your imagination as the notion that there is God.

I call this new being "Non-God" which atheists seem to follow. Including me.
But denying that it doesn't require leap of faith of making conclusion about something that only can be imagined is in self not logical.

 

[FredLC]

It's a matter of manners then, I'm asking you to read the whole thread and make posts based on it, because I guess I consider this well mannered in a thread. I'm not getting heated but I am asking you to address a new thread not another thread with an argument based on an old one, do this in it's context and I'll do that in your old one. Issues here have to be adressed first in my mind, I don't think your old thread addresses them, so I question the relevance to this thread.

At the end of the day though my argument agianst your argument is you've simply replaced logic and proof with bold statements without any of those two parameters. In other words your comparisson is not valid, your just trying to make out it is more valid, without actually showing that agnosticism<atheism. But I'll answer this at length when you answer this thread.

Now, don't go playing victim on me. Manners!?!

Again, your whole idea is impertinent. First, because I'm yet to know of this supposed netquette, that we have to go throught every thread entirely and never bring back what was mentioned before; Second, because the post was contextual - I mean, hardly this thread has set new parameters of originality in this debate. 3rd, because the single argument you have asked me t address is an endicement on "strong atheism", a position that I have never defended, (and, in fact, that I objected myself in the given post).

And finally, you have not pointed which questions or posts you'd like to see me assess. "Answer this thread"? What is this supposed to mean? Answer every post on the thread? It's notr like I haven't issued a pretty comprehendable opinion on the topic debate, strong enough, in fact, to warrent this antagonism! *Sight* !!!

Quite frankly, I feel that your accusations are preposterous and you are running into excuses to avoid consubstanciating your post, as I requested. Wheter it's you who have pinned me down, or you simply got what is going on here entirely backwards, my friend, is a judgement that I'll leave to whoever do read these posts.

The same as to who is nitpicking and evading, and who isn't.

Now, before I face the curtain, I say again: point me exactly which post you want me to answer - they are all numbered after all - or repost all questions you want addressed now. I'll not bother to elect "the thread's important issues" myself just to see you say that the "thread" isn't "answered" yet. Or you just answer my post directly, whitout the need of this charade. Have it your way on either option. I'll gladly answer whatever when whatever is avaiable.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Tsk, Tsk Fred.
The bolded part is leap of faith.
I'm sorry but your logic is also fallible.

And it should be: Getting to "anything" what we don't know IS, in the end, an appeal to ignorance.
So therefore your implying that there isn't a God is as much of product of your imagination as the notion that there is God.

I call this new being "Non-God" which atheists seem to follow. Including me.
But denying that it doesn't require leap of faith of making conclusion about something that only can be imagined is in self not logical.

I agree that to expect something IS an appeal to ignorance. Maybe you missed how...indulgent, for lack of a better term, I was, in that reply, to such idea, to which I dont agree.

Besides, "non-God" isn't an entity, and i'm yet to know about people who follow it. Well, perhaps it just has a gospel of "minding-my-own-business". I think I could adhere to that, actually.

(oops; visits arrived; to be continued ASAP):

 

[Sidhe]

Now, don't go playing victim on me. Manners!?!

Again, your whole idea is impertinent. First, because I'm yet to know of this supposed netquette, that we have to go throught every thread entirely and never bring back what was mentioned before; Second, because the post was contextual - I mean, hardly this thread has set new parameters of originality in this debate. 3rd, because the single argument you have asked me t address is an endicement on "strong atheism", a position that I have never defended, (and, in fact, that I objected myself in the given post).

And finally, you have not pointed which questions or posts you'd like to see me assess. "Answer this thread"? What is this supposed to mean? Answer every post on the thread? It's notr like I haven't issued a pretty comprehendable opinion on the topic debate, strong enough, in fact, to warrent this antagonism! *Sight* !!!

Quite frankly, I feel that your accusations are preposterous and you are running into excuses to avoid consubstanciating your post, as I requested. Wheter it's you who have pinned me down, or you simply got what is going on here entirely backwards, my friend, is a judgement that I'll leave to whoever do read these posts.

The same as to who is nitpicking and evading, and who isn't.

Now, before I face the curtain, I say again: point me exactly which post you want me to answer - they are all numbered after all - or repost all questions you want addressed now. I'll not bother to elect "the thread's important issues" myself just to see you say that the "thread" isn't "answered" yet. Or you just answer my post directly, whitout the need of this charade. Have it your way on either option. I'll gladly answer whatever when whatever is avaiable.

Regards .

Do you do this in court I'm bored now,answer what you will is the whole of the law, just read the thread and answer whatever.

Ezekial 5:9

Do that and I may just may consider answering your argument with no proof: or as I like to call it semantics with no merit. your choice. At least in a case you have evidence. In your argument you have semantics and wordy world wise nonsense, I hope that helps you out. I know let's just determine if what I said was deserving of an answer and not actually prove anything, you must love going round in circles.

Regards

 

[C~G]

I agree that to expect something IS an appeal to ignorance. Maybe you missed how...indulgent, for lack of a better term, I was, in that reply, to such idea, to which I dont agree.

Yes but you are debating of existence of something that we don't know does it actually exist. Choosing either side is in fact requires leap of faith. The most neutral position is the one who is agnostic since he doesn't take position towards about something that we don't know about. Even more throughoutly neutral would be someone that doesn't even understand what the meaning of word "God" means. This doesn't however render God not existing it just means that someone doesn't know where to look for this entity. Apparently we atheists are very good looking for Non-God and give prove about his existence.

Besides, "non-God" isn't an entity, and i'm yet to know about people who follow it. Well, perhaps it just has a gospel of "minding-my-own-business". I think I could adhere to that, actually.

Maybe it should be entity since people are clearly advocating it's existence even without any knowledge of it. Or maybe it after all requires leap of faith?
What you consider then evidence of either God/Non-God existing depends about what kind of evidence you expect which in itself is also something that we don't know requiring new leap of faith.

Position of agnostic might be the most logical one since he doesn't suppose anything from the things he doesn't know about especially since we already declared that expecting something is appeal to ignorance. You can of course set certain expectations or requirements for this "being" but it's entirely your own choosing to do so which require as said certain leap of faith also.
But I believe it's the presupposition (leap of faith) that makes certain things appear to be more logical to us than other positions so in the end atheism-agnostic-theist are all as far from the truth currently because we don't have clear set standards for the proof to show does God exist or not.

We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine.
H. L. Mencken

 

[Gogf]

I disagree. Just because everything can be described physically does not mean that it is not affected by God, in a way too subtle for us to figure out.

Let's say there is a God. This God sets up a universe where everthing can be explained by a few, fundametal physical principles. It can all work without his intervention, or even his existence. He leaves us no evidence that he exists. How is this God different from no God at all, and why would he go to all this trouble to fool us?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Who says that it is fooling us?

And what if He interacts with us, but not until after we are dead?

 

[Gogf]

Who says that it is fooling us?

Well, it's clearly fooling a rather large percentage of us. And, even if it's not, what other reason would God have to set up a world like this?

And what if He interacts with us, but not until after we are dead?

Fine. Then what is the difference between him and no God, for those of us who are still alive? I'd like to think that's most of us at CFC.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But it will matter.

And just because we are left unsure doesn't mean God is being deceitful.

 

[FredLC]

Do you do this in court I'm bored now,answer what you will is the whole of the law, just read the thread and answer whatever.

Ezekial 5:9

Do that and I may just may consider answering your argument with no proof: or as I like to call it semantics with no merit. your choice. At least in a case you have evidence. In your argument you have semantics and wordy world wise nonsense, I hope that helps you out. I know let's just determine if what I said was deserving of an answer and not actually prove anything, you must love going round in circles.

Regards

Actually, it did help.

Have a good life.

 

[FredLC]

Yes but you are debating of existence of something that we don't know does it actually exist. Choosing either side is in fact requires leap of faith. The most neutral position is the one who is agnostic since he doesn't take position towards about something that we don't know about. Even more throughoutly neutral would be someone that doesn't even understand what the meaning of word "God" means. This doesn't however render God not existing it just means that someone doesn't know where to look for this entity. Apparently we atheists are very good looking for Non-God and give prove about his existence.
Maybe it should be entity since people are clearly advocating it's existence even without any knowledge of it. Or maybe it after all requires leap of faith?
What you consider then evidence of either God/Non-God existing depends about what kind of evidence you expect which in itself is also something that we don't know requiring new leap of faith.

Such leaning would be wonderful. If there is any debate in which being oblivious is the better choice, that is the one. However, I'm not impervious to the environment. This unsettling stage around us (me) warrants a reaction.

If I were Robson Crusoé, lost in my own little island, the subject of God would not be on my list of things to think about.

Position of agnostic might be the most logical one since he doesn't suppose anything from the things he doesn't know about especially since we already declared that expecting something is appeal to ignorance. You can of course set certain expectations or requirements for this "being" but it's entirely your own choosing to do so which require as said certain leap of faith also.
But I believe it's the presupposition (leap of faith) that makes certain things appear to be more logical to us than other positions so in the end atheism-agnostic-theist are all as far from the truth currently because we don't have clear set standards for the proof to show does God exist or not.

We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine.
H. L. Mencken

Maybe tomorrow I won't, but today, I'm not in the mood to further a debate of the existence of a non-being, and it's consequences to debate. Agnosticism can have the epistemological edge of an philosophical out-of-touch kind if it wants. They are bathed with much more mooshine, these man of the moon. I'm happy with a more pragmatical edge, thanks very much.

Regards .

 

[C~G]

Such leaning would be wonderful. If there is any debate in which being oblivious is the better choice, that is the one. However, I'm not impervious to the environment. This unsettling stage around us (me) warrants a reaction.

If I were Robson Cruso&#233;, lost in my own little island, the subject of God would not be on my list of things to think about.

Oh good answer.

Now, does the not asking the question mean you are atheist, theist or agnostic?

Maybe tomorrow I won't, but today, I'm not in the mood to further a debate of the existence of a non-being, and it's consequences to debate.

Now you are dodging bullets of the opposition my friend.

I think non-being might exactly the thing you need to convince yourself that it's leap of faith to say "there's no God" in the first place.

Agnosticism can have the epistemological edge of an philosophical out-of-touch kind if it wants. They are bathed with much more mooshine, these man of the moon. I'm happy with a more pragmatical edge, thanks very much.

How you position as atheist applies more pragmatical edge?
Being agnostic would basically mean the same thing and same goes to theists if you would had evidence that would satisfy you regarding this question.
Even though I'm here dirtying my own nest since I kind of similar view and since I haven't encountered such evidence of this imaginary being the question has quite significantly rendered itself useless (only used to ponder other points of view about the subject and show the error of their ways when they try to say what is logical and what isn't)

My point is that as soon as we ask the question about God's existence we have already done leap of faith towards such possibility. And this is followed by continuos stream of leaps of faiths as soon as we start to try to prove him true or non true with our own premise of what could be considered evidence of God.

Even if we don't ask this particular question there's still the good old "human experience" and when we try to explain it to ourselves we might have to consider the possibility of (eternal) being such as universum with or without the God. You see...the universum without God is entity in itself which is the Non-God I'm talking about. Some call it example simply "nature". You already give it certain characteristics that you assume it to have based into the conclusions of the evidence you got this far about it's nature. You consider it can move on it's own while others claim based to the same evidence the contrary.

More problems rise whenl you claim that God is being something beyond of this universum which requires leap of faith in itself as it applies something exists outside this universum. At that point you have already given certain premise towards the evidence for God's possible existence and therefore you judge the case based into it. Same goes to giving God certain characteristics and judging the evidence based into those characteristics.

So as said my pov is that there's no such thing as question of "Is there God?" for me. But as soon as I make such question it requires answer and leap of faith towards something which we don't know anything about. And I can honestly say based to the things I know I conclude God doesn't exist (and same probably goes to you) however I'm not being denial that making such comment isn't leap of faith.

As soon as you start to ponder the issue you have done leap of faith.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that pondering the existence of God is the natural consequence of being self-aware beings surrounded by forces much greater than us. It might not lead anywhere, and it might not be very important, but it is what makes us human.

 

[Fifty]

Sidhe I'm sorry for not responding directly to your response to my original question, but TBH I found it rather confusing (grammatically and otherwise) so I figured it may be better to start anew.

I think this "debate" is little more than a linguistic confusion, and there is not much (if anything) of philosophical significance to talk about. So the last thing we should do (Sidhe) is freak out and refuse to answer someone's point because it is some sort of "language trick" or whatever. Language is, as far as I can tell, precisely the source of confusion here.

Fred's definition (as I see it) of atheist is not just some dirty word-trick perpetrated by a member of the evil lawyer's guild, its a good and commonly used definition:

(strong) atheist: The belief that the evidence suggests that God does NOT exist.

(weak) atheist: The belief that in the absense of evidence for the existence of God, we assume that God does not exist, just as in the absense of evidence of the existence of [insert something bizarre, like the FSM], we assume IT does not exist.

agnostic: A position of formal uncertainty. I do not know any more that god exists than that he does not exist.

Often times, when someone states that they are an "atheist", they mean "I am a weak atheist". It is certainly a decent and widely held definition of the term atheist. I created a poll about this once, and it turns out a majority of atheists adhere to the "weak atheist" position. No amount of verbatim dictionary quotations will change the fact that when many people say "atheist", they mean "weak atheist".

With that plausible linguistic convention in mind, I think it is wrong to assert something to the effect of "atheists are just as bad as religionists because they both believe something that cannot be proven". The reason such an assertion is wrong is obvious: If one taks the "weak atheist" definition, there is nothing believed in.

Now we can move to the more important question of which is the better position, atheist or agnostic. My contention is that, if one wanted to adhere most closely to the general convention that we use when approaching questions of the existence of some x, and if we assume that there is no evidence for the existence of god, the (weak) atheist position is more consistent than the agnostic position. When we approach the question of the existence of some x, it is a simple fact that, in practice, we assume that x does NOT exist until we are given evidence for the existence of x. This blindingly obvious fact cannot be overridden by any amount of nitpicking about the impossibility of disproof. Nobody is truly "agnostic" about the question of whether a man eating tiger is going to rip them apart in their sleep tonight (anybody truly uncertain about such an issue would surely not sleep!). The fact is that, in practice, we assume that a tiger is NOT about to rip us apart because we have no reason to beleive that a tiger is about to rip us apart. As such, it is most consistent to assume that god does NOT exist until given a reason to believe he does!

For those reasons, I see agnosticism (assuming the agnostic has no specific evidence for believing in god) as a position that is less consistent with our general approach towards questions of existence than atheism.

My question to agnostics is, apart from silly linguistic quibbling about what atheist REALLY means (since clearly many atheists consider themselves weak atheists by my definitions), what makes the agnostic position more plausible or linguisticly consistent than the atheist position?

 

[El_Machinae]

what makes the agnostic position more plausible or linguisticly consistent than the atheist position?

Billions of people believe in supernatural intervention, and have for thousands of years. The social drive to believe in Jesus is much higher than to believe in the FSM; and thus more effort is required to specificially disbelieve in Jesus when questioned about him.

I would guess.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe I'm sorry for not responding directly to your response to my original question, but TBH I found it rather confusing (grammatically and otherwise) so I figured it may be better to start anew.

I think this "debate" is little more than a linguistic confusion, and there is not much (if anything) of philosophical significance to talk about. So the last thing we should do (Sidhe) is freak out and refuse to answer someone's point because it is some sort of "language trick" or whatever. Language is, as far as I can tell, precisely the source of confusion here.

Fred's definition (as I see it) of atheist is not just some dirty word-trick perpetrated by a member of the evil lawyer's guild, its a good and commonly used definition:

(strong) atheist: The belief that the evidence suggests that God does NOT exist.

(weak) atheist: The belief that in the absense of evidence for the existence of God, we assume that God does not exist, just as in the absense of evidence of the existence of [insert something bizarre, like the FSM], we assume IT does not exist.

agnostic: A position of formal uncertainty. I do not know any more that god exists than that he does not exist.

Often times, when someone states that they are an "atheist", they mean "I am a weak atheist". It is certainly a decent and widely held definition of the term atheist. I created a poll about this once, and it turns out a majority of atheists adhere to the "weak atheist" position. No amount of verbatim dictionary quotations will change the fact that when many people say "atheist", they mean "weak atheist".

With that plausible linguistic convention in mind, I think it is wrong to assert something to the effect of "atheists are just as bad as religionists because they both believe something that cannot be proven". The reason such an assertion is wrong is obvious: If one taks the "weak atheist" definition, there is nothing believed in.

Now we can move to the more important question of which is the better position, atheist or agnostic. My contention is that, if one wanted to adhere most closely to the general convention that we use when approaching questions of the existence of some x, and if we assume that there is no evidence for the existence of god, the (weak) atheist position is more consistent than the agnostic position. When we approach the question of the existence of some x, it is a simple fact that, in practice, we assume that x does NOT exist until we are given evidence for the existence of x. This blindingly obvious fact cannot be overridden by any amount of nitpicking about the impossibility of disproof. Nobody is truly "agnostic" about the question of whether a man eating tiger is going to rip them apart in their sleep tonight (anybody truly uncertain about such an issue would surely not sleep!). The fact is that, in practice, we assume that a tiger is NOT about to rip us apart because we have no reason to beleive that a tiger is about to rip us apart. As such, it is most consistent to assume that god does NOT exist until given a reason to believe he does!

For those reasons, I see agnosticism (assuming the agnostic has no specific evidence for believing in god) as a position that is less consistent with our general approach towards questions of existence than atheism.

My question to agnostics is, apart from silly linguistic quibbling about what atheist REALLY means (since clearly many atheists consider themselves weak atheists by my definitions), what makes the agnostic position more plausible or linguisticly consistent than the atheist position?

I must apologise actually to Fred and to fifty, I should really have answered his post, but I kinda felt the thread had been hijacked by asserting something that was being discussed in another thread and did not have relevance to the points being made at the time. Even so I was being a bit childish and for this I'm sorry.

In answer to the last paragraph:-

weak atheist, I do not believe God exists, there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God, so therefore I do not believe in him. It is more reasonable to believe that something does not exist without evidence than it is to say you don't know.

I wouldn't say it was more logical or more consistent to say this though as people seem to assume apriori things before having any reason to do so, ie since I have no proof or evidence either way it is reasoned to say that it has only a probability of existing and this is small( as I pointed out before though how can you have a probability if you don't know enough to state the chances of being wrong or right? This to me seems illogical.

If I roll a dice it has 6 faces so there is a 1 in six chance of any face coming up, if you say that there is only 1 in 100 chance of God existing, then what dice are you talking about, what statistical reasoning are you using, are you not in fact saying that the chance of God existing is 1 in (the amount of statistical chance based on data or evidence) In fact = 1 in 0/0 or undefined. 1 in undefined? What does that mean?

So scientifically speaking I can say that there is no proof of a magical pink unicorn, but I cannot say that the pink unicorn does not exist.

Or say for example I can say that string theory has no supporting evidence, but I cannot say that string theory is wrong or strings don't exist, or that it has a 1 in a thousand chance of being right only that it is not scientific.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Oh, here we go again. I give up. I know very well the weak atheist position. My ENTIRE argument was that the weak atheist position is based on a fallacy.

Basically, It's like I said....every argument against God relies either on refutation by observation or some formulation of an occum's razor argument. A disproof of anything relies on one of these, or an extension of them. But neither work in this specific situation due to the nature of God (or atleast a sufficiently vague version of it).

But whatever, this debate's going in circles. It was interesting though.

 

[Sidhe]

Oh, here we go again. I give up. I know very well the weak atheist position. My ENTIRE argument was that the weak atheist position is based on a fallacy.

Basically, It's like I said....every argument against God relies either on refutation by observation or some formulation of an occum's razor argument. A disproof of anything relies on one of these, or an extension of them. But neither work in this specific situation due to the nature of God (or atleast a sufficiently vague version of it).

But whatever, this debate's going in circles. It was interesting though.

I realised this but others didn't so I tried to point it out again, sorry if that annoyed you.

 

[ThePhysicist]

I realised this but others didn't so I tried to point it out again, sorry if that annoyed you.

My post was not directed at you. And don't worry, I'm not annoyed, I just think the thread is no longer productive. The same things are being pointed out over and over.

 

[Fifty]

@the physcist: I haven't been reading this thread. Could you link to the post where you explain the fallacy that you believe underpins weak atheism?

I wouldn't say it was more logical or more consistent to say this though as people seem to assume apriori things before having any reason to do so, ie since I have no proof or evidence either way it is reasoned to say that it has only a probability of existing and this is small( as I pointed out before though how can you have a probability if you don't know enough to state the chances of being wrong or right? This to me seems illogical.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? It seems to me that the nature of our reasoning process, as well as our linguistic convention, is to assume that some x does not exist (or that the probability of x existing is negligably small), until we are given some amount of evidence for believing that the chance of x existing is more than miniscule.

If I roll a dice it has 6 faces so there is a 1 in six chance of any face coming up, if you say that there is only 1 in 100 chance of God existing, then what dice are you talking about, what statistical reasoning are you using, are you not in fact saying that the chance of God existing is 1 in (the amount of statistical chance based on data or evidence) In fact = 1 in 0/0 or undefined. 1 in undefined? What does that mean?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. If we say that the current sum of evidence for the existence of god is 0, that does not mean that we cannot factor in a vanishingly small probability based on the notion of "unforseen future evidence". This avoids your division by zero problem and it squares perfectly with inductive logic. If the probabilty of the existence of x is vanishingly small, then we have no good reason for even entertaining the notion, and we ignore it. That is, we assume x does not exist.

So scientifically speaking I can say that there is no proof of a magical pink unicorn, but I cannot say that the pink unicorn does not exist.

I agree that you cannot say the unicorn does not exist in some "fundamental" manner, but we can apply the principles I just described to say that it doesn't exist in a manner that is much more consistent with the manner in which we, in practice, approach and assess questions of existence.