Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[evildave]

I'm an Apathetic Agnostic: I don't know and I don't care.

Now certainly I place the probability of anyyone's God characters right up there with other fictional characters in popular literature.

"Do this because YODA says...."

If you want it worked out arithmetically, between "Are any gods", "Are not any gods", "Afterlife" and "No afterlife", we have a pitiful 1 in 4 chance of a fundy's Pascal - specific scare -mongering being accurate, given all available provable data (none whatsoever).

By the time you subdivide for one/many gods, possible afterlives and begin throwing specific godly policies into the mix, the chances any dimwit shouting at you about your specific doom at the hands of his favorite deity(s) after you're dead (according to their own personal interpretation of scripture (read or not) and the voices in their heads) becomes vanishingly small with relatively little ranting and raving on their part. In fact, within 30 seconds, they are usually shooting well beyond lottery odds.

 

[H3LL]

I summarise my atheism as such:

I do not think it is possible for a spoon from my kitchen drawer to transport me instantaneously to Alpha-Centuri and back.

There has been no evidence in recorded history to show a spoon has transported a human to and from a distant star.

There is no evidence today that such an event is possible or probable, and I accept that there will never be any evidence to support such an event. Such a thing is irrelevant to my life, and ignored.

Being asked to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent god or gods is a scenario more improbable and more complex than intergalactic cutlery in my kitchen draw.

As such, equally irrelevant.

Agnostics believe it may be possible that I have intergalactic cutlery and will accept it if shown to be true.

I made the step from believing that it was possible to understanding it was irrelevant.

By this simple example I classify myself as atheist.

 

[T'ai Chi]

[B
I believe that the supernatural does not exist. I believe this because of the substantial supporting evidence for the hypothesis of naturalism. Note that this does not mean I am 100% certain that the supernatural does not exist.
[/B]

She said that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any". She didn't say it is highly probable that no supernatural forces or entities exists, or there is no evidence for any supernatural forces or entities. She said, flat out, that there are no supernatural forces or entities.

Your view is more sensible, hers was not, as she was 100% certain, at least judging from this quote.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I summarise my atheism as such:

I do not think it is possible for a spoon ...

As you said, irrelevant. Next.

 

[evildave]

I summarise my atheism as such:

I do not think it is possible for a spoon from my kitchen drawer to transport me instantaneously to Alpha-Centuri and back.

...

And so it remained irrelevant, until the day he accidentally stacked the spoon with the mysterious Ronco device that never had an apparent use in the drawer next to the cutlery drawer, and was transported through mind-twisting dimensions to another world.

If only he had read the little warning about proximity to spoons that Mr. Popiel had stamped onto the handle.

 

[Checkmite]

If they're not omnipotent, what's the point in worshipping them? It would just be a matter of who's got more superpowers, and that's hardly worthy of worship. Besides, if anyone's shy of omnipotence, it means you have a fighting chance.

Lack of omnipotence didn't seem to bother any followers of classical polytheistic religions, nor the more modern "earth-worship" practitioners.

...nor does it bother Deists.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

Complete nonsense. Not only does this presuppose that dualism and idealism are the only alternatives to the non-existence of god, but it also presupposes that one must be 100% certain that dualism and idealism are false, in order to hold some position other than them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense? So you say, but who agreed you are the final word?

What are you talking about? Who said anything about me being the final word on anything?

If you have some other position not encompassed by the ideas of idealism, materialism, or the combo of both, dualism, you have never explained and defended it.

This is completely untrue. I have explained and defended my position here many times, and you know it.

As you well know, my stance is the historical one, materialism=nonmind, idealism=mind being a usual way to say it.

Baloney. Not only are those laughably oversimplified portrayals of those positions, but they are not, as you claim, in any way the historical view of materialism and idealism.

Why do you think that every person in the world must hold one of the three metaphysical positions of dualism, materialism, or idealism? What about people who think all three are nonsense? What about people who think that metaphysics in general is nonsense? What about people who have never even given metaphysics any consideration in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone is free to hold any position they deem suitable. That fact makes the current discussion meaningless to them, but so what? Many people who post here do not fit any of those categories and are having a discussion.

So what? So this directly contradicts your assertion that one must be an idealist or dualist in order to not be an atheist.

Nor have I ever seen a rational position defended that is not one of my three choices.

Yes you have. You are either pretending you have not, or failed to understand the positions when you heard them. I know this because my position is not one of those three choices, and I have repeatedly explained and defended it to you.

Finally, I do have a point of 100% certainty, that being 'thought exists'.

Logical tautologies do not count, because they are not actually claims about reality, although you very well may phrase them in such a way as to be.

Case in point: The statement "thought exist" is only meaningful if you define the terms "though" and "exist". I would say that if you are 100% certain that though exists, then we have 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You have never bothered to formulate a formal definition for those terms, and are using them in a purely intuitive way. If this is the case, then your statement is incoherent, and thus irrelevant.

(2) You have defined thought and existence in such a way that the existence of thought is a tautology. In this case your certainty that thought exists is no different than my certainty that dogs are mammals. It is true by virtue of how we define the terms being used.


jzs,

I believe that the supernatural does not exist. I believe this because of the substantial supporting evidence for the hypothesis of naturalism. Note that this does not mean I am 100% certain that the supernatural does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She said that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any". She didn't say it is highly probable that no supernatural forces or entities exists, or there is no evidence for any supernatural forces or entities. She said, flat out, that there are no supernatural forces or entities.

Your view is more sensible, hers was not, as she was 100% certain, at least judging from this quote.

You mean judging from your interpretation of her quote. She never said she was 100% certain, either. Those of us who clearly understand that there is no such thing as 100% certainty of facts about reality, usually do not find it necessary to qualify every statement we make with "it is highly probable that...".

I make statements like that all the time. I'll say something like "Carbon 14 decays into nitrogen by emitting an electron and an anti-neutrino", rather than "Our current theories, which have considerable supporting evidence, indicate that...".

For you to conclude that she was implying some sort of absolute certainty, is nothing more than assuming she meant what you wanted her to mean.


Dr. Stupid

 

[TragicMonkey]

Lack of omnipotence didn't seem to bother any followers of classical polytheistic religions, nor the more modern "earth-worship" practitioners.

...nor does it bother Deists.

Hmmm. I think I see where you're going with that. If there's a not-completely omnipotent god, worship it. That'll lull its suspicions and it'll start hanging out with you. You simply go on worshipping, being a good member of the flock, until the moment arrives when you can administer a quick shove at the top of flight of steps...Then you proclaim yourself the chosen successor, or at the very least make off with some of the heavenly splendor to sell on eBay at a tidy profit.

I guess if you're polytheistic, you'll have to go on a killing spree, but perhaps you can persuade some of the gods to start killing each other off. Judging by most mythology, they'd like nothing better.

 

[davidsmith73]

Logical tautologies do not count, because they are not actually claims about reality, although you very well may phrase them in such a way as to be.

Case in point: The statement "thought exist" is only meaningful if you define the terms "though" and "exist".

True, but I would say that any definition of "thought" (I would rather use the word "experience", and I assume that I am meaning the same thing as Hammegk) is going to have a fundamentally different type of definition than anything else that is said to exist. Experience can only be defined ostensively, i.e., you can only point to a particular experience and say "look, thats what I'm refering to". In contrast, a definition of a physical process is constructed through relational logic. It seems to me that given that experience is completely impervious to anything but an ostensive definition, the use of the word "exist" when refering to experience is quite unnecessary.

I would say that if you are 100% certain that though exists, then we have 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You have never bothered to formulate a formal definition for those terms, and are using them in a purely intuitive way. If this is the case, then your statement is incoherent, and thus irrelevant.

What precisely do you mean by a "formal definition" and an "intuitive way"?

(2) You have defined thought and existence in such a way that the existence of thought is a tautology. In this case your certainty that thought exists is no different than my certainty that dogs are mammals. It is true by virtue of how we define the terms being used.

I don't see what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

 

[Bubbles]

I get the impression that people are mad at me for some reason. Why? My intended claim is that absolute knowledge of anything is impossible.

I disagree with you unnecessary exclamation. Every belief you have is a best guess.




Well, I guess we are unfortunately forced to discuss definitions here. I gather that "belief" to you is a conclusion based on the evidence. If this is the definition, then I do not believe in God.

Mad, no. Frustrated, yes.

If all that you wanted to say was to assert the denial of certain knowledge, you could have very easilly done so without playing a game.

It is not at all ashamed that we should discuss definitions. The key to communication is that we all agree as to what the words mean. Otherwise, we are barking incoherent nonsense at each other.

Of course, we could agree to take standard meanings (to the degree that they are known and sufficiently clear). Can you find a definition of believe that is 'accept as true a thing proven to be true'? Every definition that I have seen is to the effect of 'accept as true a matter of uncertain truth'

If you do not like haggling about definitions, the least you could do is use standard ones!

 

[Dogwood]

Remember when I said this?

I think the number of atheists in this forum that subscribe to that definition will be few. I respect your goal not to quibble over semantics, but you may have to provide another option in order to get responses.

Time to start a new thread methinks. If you don't want people to quiblle over semantics, then why not just ask people to define their atheism and then defend it?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Logical tautologies do not count, because they are not actually claims about reality, although you very well may phrase them in such a way as to be.

Case in point: The statement "thought exist" is only meaningful if you define the terms "though" and "exist".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, but I would say that any definition of "thought" (I would rather use the word "experience", and I assume that I am meaning the same thing as Hammegk) is going to have a fundamentally different type of definition than anything else that is said to exist. Experience can only be defined ostensively, i.e., you can only point to a particular experience and say "look, thats what I'm referring to". In contrast, a definition of a physical process is constructed through relational logic. It seems to me that given that experience is completely impervious to anything but an ostensive definition, the use of the word "exist" when referring to experience is quite unnecessary.

That is the whole point I was making. For example, in my own philosophical worldview, I define "existence" to essentially mean that something has some sort of an effect, either directly or indirectly, on me. This "I", meaning my mind, or my thoughts, if you prefer, exists by definition. It is a tautology.

Now naturally not everybody is going to define those terms that way, but if you do not define "thought" and "exists" in such a way that the phrase "thoughts exist" is a tautology, then you are not logically justified in being 100% certain that thoughts exist.

I would say that if you are 100% certain that though exists, then we have 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You have never bothered to formulate a formal definition for those terms, and are using them in a purely intuitive way. If this is the case, then your statement is incoherent, and thus irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What precisely do you mean by a "formal definition" and an "intuitive way"?

A formal definition is one which stipulates the necessary and sufficient criteria that must be met for the term to apply to something. An intuitive definition is one in which you have a general intuitive idea about what a term means, but cannot nail it down specifically.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Remember when I said this?




Time to start a new thread methinks. If you don't want people to quiblle over semantics, then why not just ask people to define their atheism and then defend it?

Did any Atheist who responded to this thread agree that:


" Atheism- The doctrine that there is no God or gods. "

If so, I missed it..

Since when is ' non-belief ' a doctrine?


It's the old " Someone who doesn't like tennis, is a sports fan .. ( of the sport of ' not playing tennis ' ) "

 

[hammegk]

What are you talking about? Who said anything about me being the final word on anything?

Hmm, "complete nonsense" seems to inhibit further discussion.

This is completely untrue. I have explained and defended my position here many times, and you know it.

What we've arrived at, many times, is your stance that your position is to declare the choices meaningless.

Baloney. Not only are those laughably oversimplified portrayals of those positions, but they are not, as you claim, in any way the historical view of materialism and idealism.

Try an alternative portrayal that does not collapse into one of the 3 positions as I state them.

So what? So this directly contradicts your assertion that one must be an idealist or dualist in order to not be an atheist.

I didn't say one had to recognize one's position, so I don't agree.

Yes you have. You are either pretending you have not, or failed to understand the positions when you heard them. I know this because my position is not one of those three choices, and I have repeatedly explained and defended it to you.

If I failed to explain the essence of your position above, I have erred.

Logical tautologies do not count, because they are not actually claims about reality, although you very well may phrase them in such a way as to be.

Case in point: The statement "thought exist" is only meaningful if you define the terms "though" and "exist". I would say that if you are 100% certain that though exists, then we have 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You have never bothered to formulate a formal definition for those terms, and are using them in a purely intuitive way. If this is the case, then your statement is incoherent, and thus irrelevant.

(2) You have defined thought and existence in such a way that the existence of thought is a tautology. In this case your certainty that thought exists is no different than my certainty that dogs are mammals. It is true by virtue of how we define the terms being used.

Stimpy, may I just say, Horse-Chit!

If thought does not exist, then what are we doing? Or, what does "something" "think" we are doing?

 

[davidsmith73]

Now naturally not everybody is going to define those terms that way, but if you do not define "thought" and "exists" in such a way that the phrase "thoughts exist" is a tautology, then you are not logically justified in being 100% certain that thoughts exist.

eh? don't you mean if you do define "thought" and "exists" in such a way that the phrase "thoughts exist" is a tautology, then you are not logically justified in being 100% certain that thoughts exist.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You mean judging from your interpretation of her quote. She never said she was 100% certain, either. Those of us who clearly understand that there is no such thing as 100% certainty of facts about reality, usually do not find it necessary to qualify every statement we make with "it is highly probable that...".

Well, you do. You qualified it. You said you believe and that you are not 100% certain. She didn't.

Because I can't read her mind nor ask her questions, I have to go with what she wrote, her actual words. She said, and I quote, that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any". There are none, nor can there be any. Period. That is obviously 100% clear. No fidgiting with interpretation here.

 

[Xeriar]

Why not use more useful definitions...as in an agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god, OR if there is not one.

An atheist is someone who has chosen to reject the premise that there could be a god.

For myself, I think that all the evidence that there is likely to exist in my lifespan, has already been presented on the matter, with the sum total of evidence for god being zero.
Not 'promising traces' or 'partial evidence', not 'further study will likely clear this up', not 'we are almost ready to understand'...nada, zip, nothing.


Based on that, I can't honestly say that I hold the door open to the possibilty that there is a god, and am merely waiting to be provided with the knowledge that there is one...

Ergo, a...theism...

Nontheism.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why do we humans love labels? Do I really care if Im this or that according to anyone's view? Do the fact that I dont believe in god makes me "anything" in particular?

 

[Bubbles]

Why do we humans love labels? Do I really care if Im this or that according to anyone's view? Do the fact that I dont believe in god makes me "anything" in particular?

It makes you an atheist.

Hardly an adequate label for you (I assume), but hardly an innacurate one (apparently).

 

[KingMerv00]

Why do we humans love labels? Do I really care if Im this or that according to anyone's view? Do the fact that I dont believe in god makes me "anything" in particular?

Without labels, it's really hard to communicate effectively:

"Hey you! Give that guy that thing over by that other thing with the blue thing. And make sure you don't forget to twist that round thing with the nubs and the things on it."