This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Atheism / Agnosticism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
mindthegap5
Yeah, people who say they are atheist are actually agnostic, because everyone beleives there is "something" because there just "has to be".
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Yeah, people who say they are atheist are actually agnostic, because everyone beleives there is "something" because there just "has to be".I literally laughed.
Sorry mate, there doesn't "have to be anything." That kind of talk comes from the emotions, not from the intellect, and drawing ones knowledge of the universe from erratic, unstable, irrational emotions is definitively less logical than using reason and logic.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
Your use of the word 'believe' is different from the religious use of the word 'believe.
I'm aware of this, and this is also the root of many arguments I have with religious people. When they say believe, what they actually mean to say is that they are
certain
or
know
that God exists, while when I say believe, I mean the dictionary definition. This is where I pull your original problem forward, and say that it's utter nonsense to say we know we drew the God card when we currently don't know what card was drawn. I'm often arguing the latter point, because religious people usually have never thought that they could possibly be wrong, and never thought about it to that point.
I'm curious what you think the probability of your beliefs being wrong are. In saying that though, from a religious perspective, you have no belief. Your lack of conviction in your belief, in my opinion only, suggests that you shouldn't refer to yourself as an atheist, but rather, as someone who is continuing to search for answers, especially since you believe that it's actually possible to find an answer!
I think that the probability of me being wrong right now is very slim, and the limit of it as time progresses to infinity is zero. In other words, I believe the entropy of this subject will decay to zero, and at that moment we will find that atheists have been right the entire time, and everyone can finally move on with their lives and several philosophers will roll over in their graves. My conviction in my belief is that I believe I'm going to be shown to be 100% correct, when the time comes. Until we come up with solid proof however, as a scholar and rational being I cannot be an ignoramus and say that there's no possible way that I'm wrong with my current belief.
So, let's say my belief that I'm right at the moment is 99.9% as time goes on, it'll keep increasing 99.99% 99.999% 99.9999.....% and you'll notice it's basically a geometric progression of 99 and 9/10, which converges to 100%. The reason I hypothesize this is because we will only find more and more evidence that God does not exist as time goes on. The only time I say it's okay to have 100% belief, is when you
know
that you are right, otherwise it's just being a damn fool.
I say I'm still an atheist in this manner, because I still believe there is no God, and it's not lack of conviction, but
solely the thirst for good proof that causes the sub 100% belief, or lack of
knowing
the answer absolutely.
Should there be a word to describe someone who's looking for their 100% belief? Yes. DoctorLore and Skreeran are arguing that it's the definition of 'Agnostic', but it can't be in the sense that they're describing it as.
If I recall correctly, agnosticism doesn't imply they're searching for the truth, it's simply the admittance that they don't know the truth. Anyways, that's how I perceive the term, and I prefer that one because it's humble. My vocabulary isn't strong enough to come up with something better.
Honestly though I haven't read through the entire topic and I purposely avoided the terminology battle, so I can't comment on arguments by Skeeran and DoctorLore on this. I just jumped in because I felt like clarifying the dual-belief point 2 pages ago now.
For clarity's sake - the reason why I believe you need that 100% belief is to avoid the 'silly' situation of being a Christian Muslim - trying to have a seat in both camps.
In this case, do you mean blind faith when you say 100% belief? From what I say is the FACT that no one knows what card was drawn at the beginning of the universe, it's impossible to say you
know
(e.g. belief with 100% certainty that you are right) which card was drawn, and from our discussion I'd guess that you'd be inclined to agree.
Anyways, the reason why there can't be Christian/Muslims is because they conflict with each other on many points, enough so that they're two completely different schools of thought, and for a person at that 99% point in his reasoning, deciding on which card he or she believes was drawn, that person chooses a religion or lack of one that is synonymous with their belief. Of course they can't choose religions that conflict with each other at that point, our brains don't allow it.
In that sense, I don't think you need blind faith to avoid that situation, you just need good reasoning. Now, on that note I think I'll take my leave. This was actually a very interesting thought experiment; thanks for making me think out my beliefs more stringently.
Post by
607995
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
After reading through this thread, I've realized that I'm not Atheist, but Agnostic Atheist.As am I, but I still call myself "atheist" for brevity's sake. Like Dawkins says: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
you can be an agnostic and atheist because under the commonly accepted definitions, there's no contradiction.
That's not true. I think Dawkins' view on the spectrum is more accurate than your overlapping view. His 'category 4', the middle of the road "I don't know and I can't know" is much closer to commonly defined agnosticism than your "not 100.00000% sure about X".
In any event, they can't possibly overlap. Agnostic specifically refers to a lack of knowledge about the divine. By definition, atheist implies knowledge about the divine. Yes, we acknowledge that it's possible that it's incorrect. But it's not agnostic! If you claim a little bit of knowledge (i.e. atheism), then by your argument you are gnostic already. You can't argue that you know nothing when you're coming to a logical belief that God doesn't exist.
The problem is that you're set on using a pair of definitions that aren't compatible and are inherently contradictory.
Of course they can't choose religions that conflict with each other at that point, our brains don't allow it.
In that sense, I don't think you need blind faith to avoid that situation, you just need good reasoning. Now, on that note I think I'll take my leave. This was actually a very interesting thought experiment; thanks for making me think out my beliefs more stringently.
What is a Christian? Someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God and saviour. Funden, a Mormon, is technically a Christian by that definition, even though he doesn't follow a religion that declares itself as 'Christian'. He's not Catholic, he's not Protestant, he's not Anglican. But he is still a Christian. Even if the Catholics, Protestants and Anglicans don't acknowledge him as Christian, as they do each other.
This is actually another example of why argument by majority is flawed, and why 'commonly accepted definitions' aren't relevant in a philosophical discussion.
Either way, glad you joined the chat. Maybe you can return the favour sometime and teach me how to kite with my Frost Mage ;)
No, I don't believe that people that will delude themselves. If you look at world religions, and the broad range of what exactly a "god" is, you start to realise that eventually someone is going to hit on something that exists. I just don't believe that, just because they call it a god, it's actually in any way deserving of the name.
Look at the way religion has latched onto our lack of information about the creation of the universe and how certain subsections have declared the "big bang" as gods act of creating the universe.
I disagree, sortof - there's a big difference referring to the Big Bang as an Act of God, or referring to a burning bush as an Avatar of God, and referring to it as God itself. Christians latched themselves onto Jesus, because he was a physical manifestation of God (trinity and all). But having said that, they also claim he did perform god-like things, and probably deserved the name. Yet the Jews and Romans still managed to doubt the validity of it. I think you don't give religious cynics enough credit, but that's just my opinion.
It's not delusional to make a leap of faith like that, just not grounded in rational deduction.
It is, actually. You have a theory, you're given new evidence, and you identify how your theory reconciles with that evidence. If it's contradictory, you reject your theory. If it's reconciliable, you maintain your theory.
It's worth noting that even the 6000 year old universe theory is reconciliable. How old is a piece of furniture in the Sims? Every piece of furniture has a back history. Just because it was popped into the universe at a particular point in time doesn't mean that it won't register as "X years old". It's unlikely, certainly, as far as life goes, but it's not contradictory with those theories.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Well of course, a gradient scale is always going to have more accurate measurements than black & white divides, but it doesn't mean my overlapping diagram isn't correct: category 1, 4 and 7 are shown, Dawkins simply applied the semantic differential scale to it.
Dawkins treats category 7 as atheist, and category 6 as 'de facto atheist', implying that it's *not* atheism.
Theism and Atheism deal with belief, not knowledge.
Either your belief is blind and/or illogical, or you have knowledge that leads you to form your belief.
You can believe something and know it, you can believe something and not be sure, you can not believe in something and not be sure, or you can not believe in something and know it.
See above.
Perhaps not, but they certainly are relevant in semantic discussions and I believe this qualifies.
I beg to differ - I think using technically correct definitions are even more important in semantic discussions. If you're chatting to Joe Blogs you meet at the bar, sure, colloquial definitions are appropriate, unless you want to appear like Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. But in a discussion on semantics, you should only be using technically correct definitions in order to come to a technically correct conclusion.
With what? It's contradicted by dendrochronology, background radiation measurements, and most, if not all, radiometric dating.
You should've kept reading. If you could take a perfect measure of the age of matter a split second after the big bang, how old would it be? Age / time is relative. I don't think there's some property in matter that's definable as 'time since age zero'.
As I said - how old is a piece of Sims furniture, to the Sims living in their virtual house? Are the virtual particles brand spanking new? No, each item has a back history prior to entering the Sims' house. The same theory could apply - it's not that the world is 150 million years old, it's that God used 150 million year old particles to make it, to give it that 'aged' look and feel.
To people like you and I, it sounds ludicrous, but that's because we don't think of the 6000 year theory as our baseline. To people who do, it's not contradictory with the real world.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
However Dawkins classifies himself as Category 6, but he still calls himself an atheist.
As I said - when you talk colloquially, you use colloquial terms. When he puts pen to paper and
writes a book about it
, he calls himself agnostic, or de facto atheist (i.e. not a true atheist). This only demonstrates my point about using the right terminology at the right times.
I think you're reading too deeply into it, (A)theism only says what you believe, not why you believe it which is what you're getting at.
We're debating 'agnosticism', not 'atheism' right now. Why do you believe? If you can reason your way into your belief, it's no longer agnostic, because by definition, you have knowledge that allowed you to come to that conclusion. Agnosticism really only applies when you have blind belief and nothing to base it on.
That's not feasibly possible when we both disagree about what the technically correct definitions are.
Then that should be our first thing to discuss and conclude on. Which I've been trying to, mind you.
You don't need to deal with absolute ages to prove that the Universe is more than 6,000 years.
While I can't rule it out as a possibility I think the idea that God created all the particles needed to create the universe, twiddled his thumbs for 150 million years then put it all together is a bit silly :P
Who said anything about creating it all and waiting 150 million years? I'm theorising (on behalf of the 6000 year creationists) that God wanted a 150 million year old universe, so he created a 150 million year old universe. In the same way that you can create a black car or a blue car, he created an 'old' car. What's technically wrong with that?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
You know what? I think we're running around in circles primarily because we both keep using different definitions of everything when we're talking about each other's points. I'm using your definition to make certain points in a "even if you're right", which you say is contradicting my definition of X term, which circles back around into pure criticism of definitions only.
How about we start from the beginning again?
We've been focusing on Huxley a lot, so lets go back in time. All the way back to the Greeks. I present to you that the etymology of Agnostic is as follows: A-, without, -Gnosis, the English pronunciation of γνῶσις (Knowledge, Inquiry or Fame) stemming from γιγνώσκω, which means "I know". From this origin, I don't see how Agnosticism deals with the position you present, or at the very least, wasn't used for that purpose when the terms were extant.
Definition of Agnostic is a good place to start.
If 'Gnostic' means "I know" (eg, 100%), 'Agnostic' should mean "I do not know", i.e. lack of knowing. Does this imply/encompass:
1) "I know nothing" (0%);
2) "I don't know everything" (0% < X < 100%);
3) "I can't be sure of what I do know" (knowledge X = 100%, but logical doubt about whether you're right);
or do you have a different thought on what it means?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
160546
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
487010
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
kattib
Reposting something I posted on another forum a while ago (sorry if this has already been explained)
Gnostic Theist: The majority of Theists fall here, they believe in god (hence theist) and they think it can be known/proven (Hence gnostic)
Agnostic Theist: Believe in god (Theist) but dont think it can be known (agnostic)
Agnostic Atheist(Weak Atheist): The majority of Atheists fall here, Dont believe in god (Atheist) but dont think it can be known (agnostic)
Gnostic Atheist (Strong atheist): Dont believe in god (Atheist) and think it can be proven (Gnostic)
Post by
Squishalot
"I don't know everything" does sound like an Agnostic stance to me, however I think the statement applies to so many people (i.e. every human ever) that it's not very useful as a definition on it's own. I'd be more inclined to say that's just a general axiom than a position.
"I can't be sure of what I do know" sums it up quite well in my opinion, however I'd be more inclined to say "I acknowledge that my beliefs may be incorrect".
Can you explain to me why you think the first applies to everyone, but the second doesn't?
"I can't be sure of what I do know", to me, actually feels like a Gnostic thought - we do have knowledge! But it may be inaccurate. If that was what Agnosticism is, Gnosticism must mean that "I am sure of what I do know", which is pretty illogical - I don't think anybody actually thinks that, and doesn't have some reasonable doubt about their knowledge position.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.