Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
When I actually get into a debate with religious people, the most important things I want to know before we begin are:
#1 Is the (insert holy book) the literal word of God or the writings of its religious scholars. #2 Do you believe in Hell, and that there are clear rules about who goes there.
#3 Do you believe in separation of Church and State.
Specific to Catholics, I always like to find out, do you believe in transubstantiation, that priests should be celibate and that women should not be allowed into the priesthood.
Specific to all Religious, do you believe in an intervening God that touches our world with miracles, or has any influence on events in human history, or a non-intervening God who started this all and left it to us to with as we see fit.
Generally that gives me a real good idea where we can agree and what is worth debating.
These split titles amuse me. I am atheist pure and simple, I have absolutely no belief in a God or Gods.
A theist on the other hand is one who believes in a God or Gods and an Agnostic is a fence sitter who either cannot make up their mind about a religion or is too lazy to do the work to determine which side of the fence they would like to sit on.
If an atheist believes that after death there is nothing and a theist believes there is some form of heaven or hell, what does an agnostic believe there is? Bullhorns? Hockey songs?
One of the definitions of an agnostic is "unwilling to commit to an opinion about something".
At least a theist is taking a side and is willing to commit to it.
I'm a theist because I believe in God, but I'm not absolutely certain. What's wrong with that?
This:
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Atheism/theism and agnostic/gnostic sit on separate axis, agnostic doesn't sit between atheism and theism.
Most theists are in fact agnostic theists because they don't "know" in the sense that they can't prove it to anyone, they just feel they're right.
So an agnostic atheist would say they don't believe, but would say that it's possible to be convinced if more information came available (or would say that they don't believe and that the truth is inherently unknowable). A gnostic atheist would say there is enough evidence to say for sure that there is no god.
Of course one has to define god too. I'm almost 100% certain about the god of the Bible, less sure about other more vague definitions of god.
This is always the trouble with debating religious beliefs, everyone has their own particular version of what they hold with great faith and other things that they don't subscribe to.
I think this is a huge reason for the droves of people leaving organized religion, not the move towards secularism and atheism.
Rigid, literalism turns off young people today in this age of the internet and blending of cultures and faiths from all over the world. Means people can't be rigid anymore, at least not without being on the margins of western society.
I think atheists spend too much time trying to disprove the existence of god and instead should try and educate people on the wrong-doings of religion itself.
First, we can't prove a negative. We don't need to disprove the existence, we simply need to point out the flaws in claims from the believer as to why their proposed deity exists and should have any influence on free society, why the holy books they use as 'evidence' aren't worth the paper they're written on, etc.
I would consider that education. Educating on the wrong-doings of religion on its own doesn't do anything unless it's in conjunction with the former. It's too easy for the adherent to simply say "Well MY personal beliefs don't allow that".
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
"Gnostic atheism" is a flawed position, and leaves one incredibly susceptible to defeat in an argument against religion. In adopting the stance, you're essentially surrendering any advantageous high ground you may have had, and are sinking to the level of the theist/deist by taking things on faith alone (less faith, as it may seem, but faith nonetheless).
I don't presume, given all that we know, that there's a "God" out there of any conventional definition, and certainly not an intervening one. However, I can't begin to assert this as an absolute truth, and I can't rule out the possibility of being compelled otherwise by the right amount of evidence. Most of the prolific atheists of our time seem to see it the same way. That's where the stark divide is between the two sides: in my case, it's conceivable that you could change my mind were the evidence to surface. In a believer's case, what will change his mind? Nothing, otherwise it wouldn't be "faith", and therein lies the circularity and immunity of the religious argument.
"Gnostic atheism" is a flawed position, and leaves one incredibly susceptible to defeat in an argument against religion. In adopting the stance, you're essentially surrendering any advantageous high ground you may have had, and are sinking to the level of the theist/deist by taking things on faith alone (less faith, as it may seem, but faith nonetheless).
That's not true 100% of the time; if the being proposed is a logical impossibility, it isn't a faith-based position to say "That can't exist because - as proposed - the being's inherent properties contradict each other".
"Gnostic atheism" is a flawed position, and leaves one incredibly susceptible to defeat in an argument against religion.
It can require not faith at all. If the definition of god says that if you say their name 3 times they appear, and they don't appear when you say their name 3 times, then the god of that definition does not exist.
That's why it's important to define god before deciding if one believes in god.
Some definitions of god can be discounted because if positive claims about that god are made, then absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease
I don't presume, given all that we know, that there's a "God" out there of any conventional definition, and certainly not an intervening one. However, I can't begin to assert this as an absolute truth, and I can't rule out the possibility of being compelled otherwise by the right amount of evidence. Most of the prolific atheists of our time seem to see it the same way.
Sure, even Dawkins rates his "confidence" in there being no god differently depending on the definition of god, but as mentioned some definitions are inherently self contradictory or that there is sufficient evidence against positive claims about a specific god.
Most people would have little trouble ruling out Zeus or Wotan.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
That's not true 100% of the time; if the being proposed is a logical impossibility, it isn't a faith-based position to say "That can't exist because - as proposed - the being's inherent properties contradict each other".
That's true, though I find it becoming increasingly common for the religious to shift the topic of discussion to broader terms and invoke a far more "general" definition of God than that defined in their own scripture. It's almost impossible to successfully defend the claims of the Bible/Koran in the modern day, so the focus has become defending any possible conception of the supernatural, so as to make the atheist appear closed-off and dismissive of all possibilities. The figurative gymnastics employed by priests/rabbis in religious debates is mind-boggling, in this regard.
So I guess it's acceptable to be a "gnostic atheist" in regards to certain conceptions of God, but I still find it to be dicey territory. I mean, it's hugely unlikely that any of the organized religions have it right in regards who created the universe and how, and impossible that more than one have it right, but maybe, just maybe, one does? I don't think I lose any traction in an argument to concede this, because the onus of proof still isn't on me, and there still isn't any substantial proof for any of it.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
Last edited by Max Cow Disease; 02-26-2013 at 12:12 AM.
Reason: "none of the organized religions" replaced with "any of the organized religions"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Max Cow Disease For This Useful Post:
To clarify, I argue that "I'm a gnostic atheist" is a blanket statement and doesn't do much service in the grander scheme. If you're certain that a particular God can't exist because of an apparent fact/contradiction, does that mean you're certain that all Gods don't exist, by any given definition? I'd sooner label myself agnostic in this regard and avoid the red tape of qualifying my views on all of the various potential definitions of God that could conceivably exist.
Maybe I'm confused...
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
Last edited by Max Cow Disease; 02-26-2013 at 10:04 AM.
Looks like I struck a chord on the suggestion of agnostics being fence sitters...good.
Just to make myself clear here I am specifically referring to the conception of God in the western sense, the Judeo Christian or Abrahamic versions. To suggest that there "might" be something or someone else out there is simply out of my realm, and forcing belief on a possible supernatural force or alien being is just not somewhere I am willing to go in this regard. There are many things that are possible, Ogopogo, Santa, the Easter Bunny, but reasonable people are simply not agnostic about them.
So narrowing it down, Agnostics are simply those who want to be believers or conversely were once stout believers on the way out, but just cant bring themselves to disregard all of the information that counters their belief.
They could be the type that were raised religious and have a very difficult time breaking from the traditions and superstitions that were presented to them from a very young age. Most have likely given up on the biblical vision of an omnipotent, omniscient force that sits in the sky judging our every move, but they like the idea of a creator so its easy to remain agnostic about that possibility. They wish they could believe in the written sense of a God, but cant buy into the all of the problems associated with the versions as presented.
The burden of indecision is difficult, I would think most atheists pass through the realm of agnosticism on their way to disbelief if they were raised or found religion at an early point in their life, but at some point that burden becomes too much to carry due to the insurmountable amount of evidence to the contrary.
Blurring the lines otherwise just creates more excuses.
Saying "I believe" in God, but "Im not certain", OR "I dont believe in God", but "Im not certain", just doesn't cut it for me. IF you believe in something then buy in with everything you have got, if you are not certain then certainly dig in and study the situation to gather everything you need to make an honest and open decision. Then move to whichever side makes the most sense for you.
Looks like I struck a chord on the suggestion of agnostics being fence sitters...good.
Just to make myself clear here I am specifically referring to the conception of God in the western sense, the Judeo Christian or Abrahamic versions. To suggest that there "might" be something or someone else out there is simply out of my realm, and forcing belief on a possible supernatural force or alien being is just not somewhere I am willing to go in this regard. There are many things that are possible, Ogopogo, Santa, the Easter Bunny, but reasonable people are simply not agnostic about them.
So narrowing it down, Agnostics are simply those who want to be believers or conversely were once stout believers on the way out, but just cant bring themselves to disregard all of the information that counters their belief.
They could be the type that were raised religious and have a very difficult time breaking from the traditions and superstitions that were presented to them from a very young age. Most have likely given up on the biblical vision of an omnipotent, omniscient force that sits in the sky judging our every move, but they like the idea of a creator so its easy to remain agnostic about that possibility. They wish they could believe in the written sense of a God, but cant buy into the all of the problems associated with the versions as presented.
The burden of indecision is difficult, I would think most atheists pass through the realm of agnosticism on their way to disbelief if they were raised or found religion at an early point in their life, but at some point that burden becomes too much to carry due to the insurmountable amount of evidence to the contrary.
Blurring the lines otherwise just creates more excuses.
Saying "I believe" in God, but "Im not certain", OR "I dont believe in God", but "Im not certain", just doesn't cut it for me. IF you believe in something then buy in with everything you have got, if you are not certain then certainly dig in and study the situation to gather everything you need to make an honest and open decision. Then move to whichever side makes the most sense for you.
I would disagree in that I think you are using the term agnostic incorrectly. I am completely certain that I don't believe in the God of the Bible, but call myself an agnostic atheist, because I know that I know I can't prove the negative, even as regards a spiteful, misogynist, brutal and inconsistent God as described in the Bible. Saying I'm agnostic is not fence sitting in any way, it's an epistemological acknowledgment.
While some or even many people may indeed be fence-sitters as you describe them, I would argue that they're not so much agnostic about God's actual existence as they are unsure of whether they personally are theist or atheist. Theist and atheist aren't the only two options as much as people try to dichotomize things. There is a middle option of "I'm not sure if I believe in God or not." That's closer to what you're describing and while a lot of people in that position call themselves agnostic, IMO it's not the proper terminology because it's not that their own state of belief in God is unknowable, they just aren't sure what they believe at the point in time you're asking them. This is where people start getting into arguments about strong and weak agnosticism.
My point is that many people are strongly atheist and epistemologically agnostic coming from a well reasoned logical perspective, not an uncertainty or lack of confidence in their disbelief. I would say it that most scientifically minded atheists who use the term agnostic atheist are closer to the position I describe than the one you describe.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onetwo_threefour For This Useful Post:
As others have mentioned before, there's not a continuous spectrum of believer > agnostic > atheist. Atheism and agnosticism address two different issues:
Atheist: "I don't believe in a supernatural god or gods."
Agnostic: "I can't state with 100% certainty if a supernatural god or gods exists or not."
I consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic. I absolutely don't believe in the God of Abraham, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris, or any of the other man-made gods. Moreover, there is no compelling evidence that some kind of supernatural higher power (a "cosmic prime mover" entity or similar) exists, but such a thing may be beyond our detection with current technologies and scientific understanding.
Certainly I think the possibility of supernatural forces existing is very, very, VERY unlikely, but I don't rule it out completely. If compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence was presented that demonstrated the existence of a supernatural power, I'd be inclined to accept it. That said, I live my life as if there are no supernatural gods or a spiritual afterlife since there is no rational, logical reason to believe these things exist.
Certainly I think the possibility of supernatural forces existing is very, very, VERY unlikely, but I don't rule it out completely. If compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence was presented that demonstrated the existence of a supernatural power, I'd be inclined to accept it. That said, I live my life as if there are no supernatural gods or a spiritual afterlife since there is no rational, logical reason to believe these things exist.
if science were able to prove and explain supernatural forces, are they still supernatural? you know the old saying, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. saying something is mystical is a placeholder until a better understanding can be achieved.
on the original topic, I generally don't like wading into threads like this because there's far too much clumping big groups of people into one category or another for my liking. I was raised catholic but don't really practice anymore. the majority of people I grew up with are also christian, but probably almost none of them adhere to the homophobia or literal "big guy in the sky with white beard" type of stuff that some atheists like to bring up all the time. just saying that the number of good, rational members of a religion far outweigh the bad in my opinion.
I would disagree in that I think you are using the term agnostic incorrectly. I am completely certain that I don't believe in the God of the Bible, but call myself an agnostic atheist, because I know that I know I can't prove the negative, even as regards a spiteful, misogynist, brutal and inconsistent God as described in the Bible. Saying I'm agnostic is not fence sitting in any way, it's an epistemological acknowledgment.
While some or even many people may indeed be fence-sitters as you describe them, I would argue that they're not so much agnostic about God's actual existence as they are unsure of whether they personally are theist or atheist. Theist and atheist aren't the only two options as much as people try to dichotomize things. There is a middle option of "I'm not sure if I believe in God or not." That's closer to what you're describing and while a lot of people in that position call themselves agnostic, IMO it's not the proper terminology because it's not that their own state of belief in God is unknowable, they just aren't sure what they believe at the point in time you're asking them. This is where people start getting into arguments about strong and weak agnosticism.
My point is that many people are strongly atheist and epistemologically agnostic coming from a well reasoned logical perspective, not an uncertainty or lack of confidence in their disbelief. I would say it that most scientifically minded atheists who use the term agnostic atheist are closer to the position I describe than the one you describe.
I would argue that your position is not much different than mine. I dont disagree that there is a middle option at all...in fact I concur that there is, and that space is generally used by those on their way in...or on their way out, and generally those that simply cannot make up their minds one way or the other at a specific time and place. What I dont like is the cube model as posted above that gives a multiple of variants to the types of atheists, agnostic or theist. It simply provides more opportunity for providing an excuse one way or the other.
I simply have not met any agnostics who have a firm view of that perch outside of..."Im just not sure"...or "I dont want to hedge my bet against the possibility". Neither of those positions suggest a confidence in that position whether it be belief or non.
As others have mentioned before, there's not a continuous spectrum of believer > agnostic > atheist. Atheism and agnosticism address two different issues:
Atheist: "I don't believe in a supernatural god or gods."
Agnostic: "I can't state with 100% certainty if a supernatural god or gods exists or not."
I consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic. I absolutely don't believe in the God of Abraham, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris, or any of the other man-made gods. Moreover, there is no compelling evidence that some kind of supernatural higher power (a "cosmic prime mover" entity or similar) exists, but such a thing may be beyond our detection with current technologies and scientific understanding.
Certainly I think the possibility of supernatural forces existing is very, very, VERY unlikely, but I don't rule it out completely. If compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence was presented that demonstrated the existence of a supernatural power, I'd be inclined to accept it. That said, I live my life as if there are no supernatural gods or a spiritual afterlife since there is no rational, logical reason to believe these things exist.
your position is no different than mine...as mentioned I make my position based on an understanding of western based religions, Abrahamic in nature. I simply refuse to take it further than that because no-one knows anything outside of what we are presented with.
I can say with some confidence that aliens exist due to scientific explanations and the idea that there are other worlds similar to ours amongst the Trillions of galaxies out there....but I would not label any of that supernatural or god-like.
...In any case, it's a good fable. I watched all the Zeitgeist movies a while ago, and, not that I agree with everything they're saying there, it was interesting to see the same creation/crucifixion/resurrection story in multiple cultures.
It astonishes me that people will watch a YouTube film and proceed to happily accept virtually all of what they are presented on the one hand, and trumpet their own measured skepticism on the other. Simply put, Zeitgeist is "interesting" only because it is little more than a piece of fiction. It was composed of hearsay and innuendo woven into a conspiracy that either badly misrepresents the contents and teachings of ancient religious texts and traditions, or it invents them entirely from whole cloth to support the film makers utterly vapid understanding of the history and development of religion.
Zeitgeist is terrible. If you are interested in religion, then you are much better served reading a book on the subject written by a bona fide expert.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
He knows all the gossip.
