True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[teck49]

Mercutio,

What is a "hard atheist"? Is that someone that really gets turned on by atheism?

Sorry, only kidding, couldn't resist that one.

But seriously, I've never heard that term used before.

 

[Robin]

Even Robin in his latest post seems to have finally admitted to having an opinion about something that cannot be verified, and admitted that he cannot be 100% sure that his opinion is correct. So is Robin not a "true skeptic?"

-Bri [/B]

Gaagh! He's done it again. I'm off to get the taste of straw out of my mouth!

 

[Bri]

Gaagh! He's done it again. I'm off to get the taste of straw out of my mouth!

Robin might want to get his foot out of his mouth while he's at it.

Robin writes:

I am of the opinion that it is simply a psychological trait, but recognise this as simply an opinion.

I write (in reference to the above statement):

Even Robin in his latest post seems to have finally admitted to having an opinion about something that cannot be verified, and admitted that he cannot be 100% sure that his opinion is correct.

Robin even used the word "opinion" here, so he cannot be arguing that he said "belief" instead of "opinion" as he has attempted before.

Perhaps Robin is claiming that his opinion can be verified in which case I'd like to see some evidence AND I'd like to know why he claims that it is simply an opinion.

Otherwise, I'd like to know why Robin insists on throwing out random fallacies at every opportunity as if that is somehow an argument in and of itself. Even if my reasoning is unsound (and I'm happy to have it pointed out if it is), it wouldn't be because of the "straw man fallacy" that Robin cannot seem to stop tossing about without any explanation. Perhaps it's the only fallacy he knows.

-Bri

 

[Pedro Gomes]

Robin and Bri, many thanks for your comments (here and here) on my diagram, and also the link to the very interesting thread on Definition of Agnosticism. Clearly, I was being over-simplistic and inaccurate: there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. Eventually, I’d like to come up with some other diagram that could address the range of concepts and subtleties that are relevant to this issue. But I suspect it would hardly be just a triangle and a dotted line...

 

[jmercer]

Robin and Bri, many thanks for your comments (here and here) on my diagram, and also the link to the very interesting thread on Definition of Agnosticism. Clearly, I was being over-simplistic and inaccurate: there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. Eventually, I’d like to come up with some other diagram that could address the range of concepts and subtleties that are relevant to this issue. But I suspect it would hardly be just a triangle and a dotted line...

Try this - draw tic-tac-toe, then draw a box around it, touching the end of each line. (enclosing the #)

Each box on the vertical side is assigned a value; likewise, each box on the bottom row is also assigned a value. The values assigned are the characteristics you want to use - make sure that they're ordered in a way that makes sense for your chart.

You can draw a circle overlapping each square that contains the charactistics you want included in the circle. This defines the characteristics of the item represented by the circle. You can even shift the circle to include more of one box and less of another, showing which way the characteristics are "weighted".

Also, for more granular classifications you can add boxes to the height and width of the diagram.

If I get a chance, I'll create an example for ya.

 

[Bri]

If I get a chance, I'll create an example for ya.

I look forward to seeing this myself!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Robin and Bri, many thanks for your comments (here and here) on my diagram, and also the link to the very interesting thread on Definition of Agnosticism. Clearly, I was being over-simplistic and inaccurate: there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. Eventually, I’d like to come up with some other diagram that could address the range of concepts and subtleties that are relevant to this issue. But I suspect it would hardly be just a triangle and a dotted line...

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. From that other thread, this is the best I could come up with:

<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5"><tr><td bgcolor="#cccccc"><div align="center">Spectrum O' Atheism / Agnosticism</div></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ccffff">Gnostic theist: "I know (for certain) that God exists."</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#99ffff">Agnostic theist (A.K.A. weak agnostic theist): "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if God exists (although we may know in the future), but I believe that God exists."</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="aqua">Agnostic (A.K.A. weak agnostic weak atheist): "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if any god exists (although we may know in the future), therefore I lack a belief in (the existance of) any god."</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#00cccc">Agnostic atheist (A.K.A. weak agnostic strong atheist): "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if any god exists (although we may know in the future), but I believe that no god exists."</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#009999">Gnostic atheist (A.K.A. gnostic strong atheist): "I know (for certain) that no god exists."</td></tr></table>

There are other beliefs such as "strong agnostic" beliefs, but very few people hold to them in practice. There are some such as "gnostic weak atheist" that most agree are contradictory. There are also a variety of "diest" beliefs (which are a subset of "theism" and hold that a god created the universe, but doesn't interfere with it).

And of course, there are certainly entire spectrums of "strength" of belief in each of these categories.

-Bri