a true agnostic?!

[cacian]

Is there such a thing?
I was wondering whether agnosticsm can merit its own religion of beliefs of disbeliefs?
How long would it last before one makes up their own mind about going one way or the other?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Most agnostics, in the way they describe their belief system, are really atheists. Either they don't know it, or they don't want to attach themselves to the word "atheist" because of the connotations some put on the word.

[YesNo]

I think the words "agnostic" or "atheist" require a specific object which others would call a "God" they believe in. There are people who claim to be opposed to all Gods, but it seems too vague to me. So if that is the case, we are all agnostics or atheists since there is some conception of God we do not accept.

The question of how long something lasts before a change occurs I find very interesting. Most of the time we don't seem to change much, but then something happens and suddenly we have a different way of looking at things. Change occurs quickly and then we live with that change for perhaps quite a while.

[ShadowsCool]

Most agnostics, in the way they describe their belief system, are really atheists. Either they don't know it, or they don't want to attach themselves to the word "atheist" because of the connotations some put on the word.

I agree with Mutatis in that an agnostic neither believes or disbelieves there is a God. Here's what I gathered about them:

- A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is an Atheist.

- A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.

Agnosticism is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. An Agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence

[Charles Darnay]

My experience with Agnostics is that they are more in line with "pagans" or even Neo-Platonist beliefs when it comes to spirituality.

They generally want a form of spirituality (for many reasons) but being familiar only with the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, they do not want the (forgive the expression) "baggage" that is the Tanakh/Bible/Koran, or the religious institutions.

I knew someone who said they believed in God, and in most of the stuff in the Tanakh, but claimed to be agnostic simply because she could not identify herself with a faith (Jewish) whose fundamental text denounces homosexuals.

So, while I agree with Shadow's distinctions on a philosophic level, I think Agnosticism is more a cultural movement - much like the 16th century Protestant movement - to discover a form of spirituality removed from the institution that controlled it (in that case, the Catholic Church.)

[cacian]

[QUOTE=YesNo;1134266]I think the words "agnostic" or "atheist" require a specific object which others would call a "God" they believe in. There are people who claim to be opposed to all Gods, but it seems too vague to me.
how do you mean by 'opposed to all Gods'?


So if that is the case, we are all agnostics or atheists since there is some conception of God we do not accept.
Even if one does not accept does that necessarily make one or the other?
I am not so sure on this one.
If the concept of God did not exist there will be neither.

The question of how long something lasts before a change occurs I find very interesting. Most of the time we don't seem to change much, but then something happens and suddenly we have a different way of looking at things. Change occurs quickly and then we live with that change for perhaps quite a while.
changes occur when we least expect them and so one would propably say never say never.

[ShadowsCool]

My experience with Agnostics is that they are more in line with "pagans" or even Neo-Platonist beliefs when it comes to spirituality.

They generally want a form of spirituality (for many reasons) but being familiar only with the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, they do not want the (forgive the expression) "baggage" that is the Tanakh/Bible/Koran, or the religious institutions.

I knew someone who said they believed in God, and in most of the stuff in the Tanakh, but claimed to be agnostic simply because she could not identify herself with a faith (Jewish) whose fundamental text denounces homosexuals.

So, while I agree with Shadow's distinctions on a philosophic level, I think Agnosticism is more a cultural movement - much like the 16th century Protestant movement - to discover a form of spirituality removed from the institution that controlled it (in that case, the Catholic Church.)

Makes sense, I agree

[cafolini]

All three stooges of history, namely theists, atheists, and agnostics, properly read, are atheists. The theist has a better chance to survive because he hides within the parameters of some inhibiting culture.

[YesNo]

how do you mean by 'opposed to all Gods'?

That's what is vague about it. How do you know you've covered all the possible conceptions one can come up for God?


Even if one does not accept does that necessarily make one or the other?
I am not so sure on this one.
If the concept of God did not exist there will be neither.


I assume if one says they don't believe in Allah or Jesus as a God they would be atheists or agnostics only with respect to either Allah or Jesus. They might believe in Yahweh or Rama or Zeus or Chance or something indefinite called Consciousness.


changes occur when we least expect them and so one would propably say never say never.
I agree.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree with Mutatis in that an agnostic neither believes or disbelieves there is a God. Here's what I gathered about them:

- A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is an Atheist.

- A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.

Agnosticism is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. An Agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence

One does not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist, atheist just means a lack of belief in a god--nothing more, nothing less. Now, there are hardcore atheists who believe that without a doubt there is no god, but they're rare, because for them it's not a belief, it's a fact. Could there be a god? I guess, but i don't believe so.

[ShadowsCool]

One does not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist, atheist just means a lack of belief in a god--nothing more, nothing less.


That's a befuddling statement. Contradictory in every sense. In all due respect.

If an atheist thought there may be a God, as you suppose many do, then why would they choose not to believe? Out of hadred?

[Charles Darnay]

One does not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist, atheist just means a lack of belief in a god--nothing more, nothing less. Now, there are hardcore atheists who believe that without a doubt there is no god, but they're rare, because for them it's not a belief, it's a fact. Could there be a god? I guess, but i don't believe so.

I don't think this can work. It's like trying to reconcile the story of Creation as it appears in the Bible and the theory of evolution - I have seen it done, but it doesn't work.

"Well," they say, "you see, when it says that God created the world in six days, those are days according to God's perception of time, not ours. Therefore the six days could have been billions of years, as evolution theory posits."

"No," says I, "that is a cop-out. Get off the fence."

You could reject God, but if you believe God exists and what is written is true, you are not an Atheist.

[OrphanPip]

No MM is right.

Atheism is a stated disbelief in God, it doesn't have to mean one believes God is impossible, it's a statement of one's relationship to the answer of the question "Does God Exist?"

Agnosticism is a statement of one's relationship to the nature of the question rather than the answer.

Some agnostics can be theists and some can be atheists.

[ShadowsCool]

No MM is right.

Atheism is a stated disbelief in God, it doesn't have to mean one believes God is impossible, it's a statement of one's relationship to the answer of the question "Does God Exist?"

Which doesn't mean I am wrong by the way.

It's a peculiar pickle to navigate being an atheist. One can believe there may be a God but not a God he or she is willing to associate with? Confusing indeed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's a befuddling statement. Contradictory in every sense. In all due respect.

If an atheist thought there may be a God, as you suppose many do, then why would they choose not to believe? Out of hadred?

There's a difference in thinking there MAY be a god and that there COULD be a god.

I don't believe there is a god, but I concede that, however unlikely the chance, there could be. I don't think there is, though. I don't believe people have been abducted by aliens, but it could have happened. I'm not sure what's confusing about this mindset.

An theist doesn't believe there's a god. It's s simple idea that is often complicated. I guess, and I say this with respect, the difference between a lot of atheists and religious people is that we can conceded that there's a possibility we're wrong. Most religious people I've met don't think that way--for them, the existence of god is as certain as the sun rising.

I didn't choose not to believe in god. I don't believe in god. I didn't in one day go from being a believer not not being one on a whim. I've tried believing in god. It doesn't work for me.

[ShadowsCool]

There's a difference in thinking there MAY be a god and that there COULD be a god.

I don't believe there is a god, but I concede that, however unlikely the chance, there could be.


That's like keeping the door open. In all due respect, in faith that's wishy washy. I can't say, I kinda believe Jesus Christ died for my sins. Either I believe it or I don't.

Of course, no one can prove anything.

In the natural world, you can prove things by the senses or disprove it.

In the supernatural (God's realm) with belief, it's different.

You believe in something you can't tangibly prove to a non-believer. It's called faith.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yep. You believe, I don't. We're in agreeance, no?

[TheFifthElement]

Bertrand Russell put forward a fairly sound definition of what agnosticism is http://atheistempire.com/mm_dl/text/Russell,%20Bertrand%20-%20What%20is%20an%20Agnostic.pdf

[Charles Darnay]

I enjoy how that is written like a brochure. You can imagine the front cover: SO YOU'VE DECIDED TO BE AN AGNOSTIC - and a very confused stick figure with a floating question mark above his head.

[Delta40]

That's like keeping the door open. In all due respect, in faith that's wishy washy. I can't say, I kinda believe Jesus Christ died for my sins. Either I believe it or I don't.

Of course, no one can prove anything.

In the natural world, you can prove things by the senses or disprove it.

In the supernatural (God's realm) with belief, it's different.

You believe in something you can't tangibly prove to a non-believer. It's called faith.

I don't like to be referred as wishy washy myself. Some of us don't make the existence of God a number one priority in our lives. So I have a spiritual self and admit the answer to such questions are totally beyond my thinking and I can be content living as a good person trusting that in death I am bound to discover what is and what isn't. For some people black and white answers are imperative. It isn't like that for others.

[ShadowsCool]

Yep. You believe, I don't. We're in agreeance, no?

Yes, on this we agree.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, on this we agree.
:party:

[cacian]

Charles Darnay;1134330]I don't think this can work. It's like trying to reconcile the story of Creation as it appears in the Bible and the theory of evolution - I have seen it done, but it doesn't work.
How is creation and evolution reconciled if one is to do with God and the other is to do with Champs?
One is a parameter of the other surely.
The question is:
What does one call one those who do not believe in evolution and would it be in the same line as one that does not believe in God?
Are we saying denial is the same as not believing?


"Well," they say, "you see, when it says that God created the world in six days, those are days according to God's perception of time, not ours. Therefore the six days could have been billions of years, as evolution theory posits."
Six days? for a God that is powerful it seems to have taken him/her quite a while...I would have thought it was created quicker then that, no offence.

"No," says I, "that is a cop-out. Get off the fence."

You could reject God, but if you believe God exists and what is written is true, you are not an Atheist.
what about those who believe there is a God but do not believe in what is written?

[cacian]

I enjoy how that is written like a brochure. You can imagine the front cover: SO YOU'VE DECIDED TO BE AN AGNOSTIC - and a very confused stick figure with a floating question mark above his head.

Haha....how about this:
Can you turn agnostic after you have been a believer ?

[JuniperWoolf]

"No," says I, "that is a cop-out. Get off the fence."


This is a bit off topic, but why does everybody always bash fence-sitters? The fence is the best place to be, you're elevated enough to see both sides clearly. I think everyone should at least start out on the fence for each issue until they've seen all there is to see, and no one should berate them to get off until they're good and ready.

[YesNo]

Six days? for a God that is powerful it seems to have taken him/her quite a while...I would have thought it was created quicker then that, no offence.

I've wondered about that as well, but I've always seen this as a story with perhaps some moral underlying it rather than what actually happened.

If I understand the big bang correctly, the universe was created in 10^(-43) seconds. Of course it took many years after that to get itself settled into place enough to support life.

[BienvenuJDC]

Six days? for a God that is powerful it seems to have taken him/her quite a while...I would have thought it was created quicker then that, no offence.



Just because He chose to create everything in six days doesn't mean that He was unable to do it more quickly. There is some profound symbolism in what was created on each day. It's a teaching method. He took about 4.000 years to bring Christ to the earth. One could ask why He took so long.

[PoeticPassions]

I don't agree that atheist believe that there could be a God. That's more the agnostic's opinion. Atheism is the contrary position to theism. As such, atheists reject the belief in all deities. There isn't much difference in rejecting a belief and not believing, other than semantics.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I always assumed it took six days for two reasons: it explains the seven day week, and it's more interesting, in a literary sense.

[cacian]

I always assumed it took six days for two reasons: it explains the seven day week, and it's more interesting, in a literary sense.

How does it explain the seven days?
I thought I heard somewhere that one has to go with the hand ( five fingers/five days).
How is it literally interesting?

[BienvenuJDC]

I always assumed it took six days for two reasons: it explains the seven day week, and it's more interesting, in a literary sense.

Well, it does explain the 7 day week (it's about the only thing that does).

[cacian]

YesNo;1134557I've wondered about that as well, but I've always seen this as a story with perhaps some moral underlying it rather than what actually happened.
Agreed, it does come across as a fictional story with an underlying issue of morality of some sort.

If I understand the big bang correctly, the universe was created in 10^(-43) seconds. Of course it took many years after that to get itself settled into place enough to support life.
That is something I never knew... it would be good to find out how they worked the actual time it took to 'bigbang' ...it is after all an exact time and by the second.

[cafolini]

Cacian, you are scaring me to life. You are making too many good points and asking too many good questions and within genuine context.

[cacian]

Cacian, you are scaring me to life. You are making too many good points and asking too many good questions and within genuine context.

cafolini !!!!I am sorry I really do not mean to scare you...haha.
Have said something wr------o----ight?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Literarily interesting. It makes for a better story than "He created the world in a minute."

Well, I'm making a huge assumption here, but I assume that we had a seven day week before Genesis was written/conceived. So, I'll also assume that the story was written around that template. It is not unusual for Christianity to integrate already established traditions into their religion.

[BienvenuJDC]

Literarily interesting. It makes for a better story than "He created the world in a minute."

Well, I'm making a huge assumption here, but I assume that we had a seven day week before Genesis was written/conceived. So, I'll also assume that the story was written around that template. It is not unusual for Christianity to integrate already established traditions into their religion.

Well, maybe the "event" was first conceived "in the beginning"...

Do we have any document which establishes the first use of the 7 day week?
Moses recorded the Genesis account about 1500 BC.

[ShadowsCool]

How does it explain the seven days?
I thought I heard somewhere that one has to go with the hand ( five fingers/five days).
How is it literally interesting?

Six days is for us pea brains to understand (sarcasm). What I mean is, God could have created everything in any time He choose. But He choose to do this in six days so we may understand the spiritual meaning behind it. You know, on the seventh day He rested.

[Charles Darnay]

This is a bit off topic, but why does everybody always bash fence-sitters? The fence is the best place to be, you're elevated enough to see both sides clearly. I think everyone should at least start out on the fence for each issue until they've seen all there is to see, and no one should berate them to get off until they're good and ready.

Yes but the fence is often pointy and painful. Furthermore, you are far too unstable unless you cling on to something - you are at the mercy of everything around you if you don't want to break your neck. No one can be firm on a fence.

But in all seriousness - I am not wholly opposed to people seeing both sides of an issue - this is a good practice - but when you try to reconcile two irreconcilable events in order to avoid any conflict, this is just silly.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, maybe the "event" was first conceived "in the beginning"...


I see what you did there.

[Charles Darnay]

Well, maybe the "event" was first conceived "in the beginning"...

Do we have any document which establishes the first use of the 7 day week?
Moses recorded the Genesis account about 1500 BC.

I am no expert on calendars but there is one thought - used in Ancient Babylon - that the seven day week is based on a lunar cycle. The moon enters a new phase every seven days. And in Ancient Babylon, the seventh day of the week was observed as a holy day. This seems to be separate from the Ancient Jewish tradition taken from Genesis. I do not know enough to say which came first.

[YesNo]

That is something I never knew... it would be good to find out how they worked the actual time it took to 'bigbang' ...it is after all an exact time and by the second.
I wondered about how they got it down to 10^(-43) of a second which is almost instantaneous and then it occurred to me that that is about how long a quantum of time lasts and apparently the physical theory can explain what happened after that first quantum of time.

The actual measurement to the big bang is 13.73 billion years plus or minus 1% and that was established by measuring the cosmic background radiation by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ I'm amazed that it can be resolved to such precision and I don't understand how that was done, but wish I did.

[MorpheusSandman]

My $0.02:

I tend to think of the issue over the labels of agnostic and atheist usually refer to one's level of certainty/uncertainty and one's claim about that certainty. "Agnostic" literally means "without higher knowledge." The original word was coined to present the idea that we can't know if there is a higher power out there (and, even if there is, we can't know anything about it). The word has come to be used to define people who "aren't sure" whether there's a higher power or whether they believe in one. Atheist really just means a lack of belief (someone is "without theism"), so all agnostics are atheists "in a sense" because they don't "believe" in a higher power (sometimes they're not sure whether they should believe or not). But there are also the atheists that aren't agnostics in the sense that they claim to be pretty sure (if not completely sure) there is no God or other higher power. So one claiming they're agnostic is a way to get around them having to claim that there is no God/supernatural/higher power, etc.

Personally, I claim to be an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any gods or any supernatural, but I do not claim to know for sure they don't exist. There's always an immense unknown out there, and it is possible (although remote, in my mind) that something somewhat matching the various ideas of any god or supernatural could be out there in the places we just don't understand yet. But considering the fact that every time we come to understand something new it turns out to be perfectly natural (even the things that were previously thought inexplicable and were therefor caused by God/gods) I think there's a good reason for rejecting the notion of the existence of gods or supernatural. But can I claim with certainty there are none? No. But do I believe in any? No. Hence: agnostic atheist.


That's a befuddling statement. Contradictory in every sense. In all due respect.

If an atheist thought there may be a God, as you suppose many do, then why would they choose not to believe? Out of hadred?It's not contradictory AT ALL. Lacking a belief is not the same as believing in its opposite. There is a whole realm of probability between the poles of true/false, 0/1, black/white. In fact, Bayesian reasoning (based on probability theory) has come to dominate a lot of scientific and rational discourse, which makes sense considering that the current most befuddling mysteries of the universe (quantum mechanics, the uncaused nature of virtual particles, etc.) seem to be based on concepts of probability rather than direct cause-and-effect. So when I say God's existence is improbable (meaning I put the chance of his existence somewhere between 0% and 100%, but closer to 0%), I can claim, simultaneously, that I don't have a believe in God (atheist), but that I am not absolutely sure one doesn't exist (agnostic). As I said above, I think one reason many feel more comfortable with the agnostic label is precisely because they think that to be an atheist one has to believe God doesn't exist, which is just wrong. I can not believe God exists without believing God doesn't exists; that's the nature of probability! It would be like me saying that that I can not believe there is a plant growing beside my house, but I don't have to believe that there isn't one growing there. It's possible one sprouted overnight when I wasn't looking, and that possibility means I can't be sure enough to believe there isn't one there.


Of course, no one can prove anything. In the natural world, you can prove things by the senses or disprove it. In the supernatural (God's realm) with belief, it's different. You believe in something you can't tangibly prove to a non-believer. It's called faith.The notion of God's and the supernatural's unprovability is a thoroughly modern concept. The Bible itself offers stories of experiments that proved the existence of God. See HERE. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/) I'll quote the relevant part:
The idea that religion is a separate magisterium which cannot be proven or disproven is a Big Lie - a lie which is repeated over and over again, so that people will say it without thinking; yet which is, on critical examination, simply false. It is a wild distortion of how religion happened historically, of how all scriptures present their beliefs, of what children are told to persuade them, and of what the majority of religious people on Earth still believe.Even more ironically, the roots of the word "faith" is not "belief without evidence or facts," but "belief upon the consistency of events." That's why we say a lover/spouse is "faithful" if they don't sleep with someone else, because they're being "consistent" in their actions. But the kind of "faith being belief without the consistency of evidence" that's now promoted by many Christians exist as a way to handwave contradictory evidence. It's what happens when beliefs become untethered from anticipated sense experience or, in the famous metaphor of Alfred Korzybski, the map stops matching the territory.


This is a bit off topic, but why does everybody always bash fence-sitters? The fence is the best place to be, you're elevated enough to see both sides clearly. I think everyone should at least start out on the fence for each issue until they've seen all there is to see, and no one should berate them to get off until they're good and ready.Absolutely. As I once wrote in a short aphoristic poem:

Lying on the fence all day
Hurts my back, it smarts!
But it’s worth it knowing which yard to roll in
When the fire starts.

[cacian]

My $0.02:

I tend to think of the issue over the labels of agnostic and atheist usually refer to one's level of certainty/uncertainty and one's claim about that certainty. "Agnostic" literally means "without higher knowledge." The original word was coined to present the idea that we can't know if there is a higher power out there (and, even if there is, we can't know anything about it). The word has come to be used to define people who "aren't sure" whether there's a higher power or whether they believe in one. Atheist really just means a lack of belief (someone is "without theism"), so all agnostics are atheists "in a sense" because they don't "believe" in a higher power (sometimes they're not sure whether they should believe or not). But there are also the atheists that aren't agnostics in the sense that they claim to be pretty sure (if not completely sure) there is no God or other higher power. So one claiming they're agnostic is a way to get around them having to claim that there is no God/supernatural/higher power, etc.

Personally, I claim to be an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any gods or any supernatural, but I do not claim to know for sure they don't exist. There's always an immense unknown out there, and it is possible (although remote, in my mind) that something somewhat matching the various ideas of any god or supernatural could be out there in the places we just don't understand yet. But considering the fact that every time we come to understand something new it turns out to be perfectly natural (even the things that were previously thought inexplicable and were therefor caused by God/gods) I think there's a good reason for rejecting the notion of the existence of gods or supernatural. But can I claim with certainty there are none? No. But do I believe in any? No. Hence: agnostic atheist.

Interesting the fact that you tend to think that supernatural and the notion of a higher being go hand in hand. I never thought about it that way.
I could say that the beliefs in ghoasts can also be described as unexplicable and can be labelled as supernatural.
I for one label not myself nor burden my ideas with anything to do or not to do with religion. I am me just in case one day I happen I turn around and decide I want to become something else. For this very reason I opt out from labelling myself with anything.

[MorpheusSandman]

Interesting the fact that you tend to think that supernatural and the notion of a higher being go hand in hand. I never thought about it that way.
I could say that the beliefs in ghoasts can also be described as unexplicable and can be labelled as supernatural.Well, in the case of higher beings and the supernatural you're dealing with things that can't be sensed with any kind of regularity by people unbiased towards believing in them, so both have people claiming they exist and evoking very specious methods and evidence to support their claims. So I really don't see a difference between them, especially since higher beings are usually considered to reside and work in the realm of the supernatural.


For this very reason I opt out from labelling myself with anything.You don't have to make any labels permanent, and there's nothing wrong with saying that right now you have a certain level of belief or disbelief in higher beings and the supernatural or whatnot. You're always free to change your mind later (and many atheists and theists and agnostics have).

[stuntpickle]

What I find most exasperating about this forum is that one can leave for an extended period of time and return to find the exact same persons having the exact same conversation filled with the exact same errors.

First, the notion of atheism as a sort of vague a-theism, meaning roughly without belief in God, really only gained mainstream cultural currency in the 1970s when George Smith wrote Atheism: The Case Against God. The book was a fairly bad one written by a layman for the layman and was riddled with errors as bald and egregious as trying to argue that Jesus was actually a violent man who "brought the sword", which was really just an awful misinterpretation even according to most atheists. The reason for this moderation, which was really just an attempt to co-opt the position of agnosticism, owed to that traditional notions of atheism had proved logically untenable. Of course, this moderation introduced, as another poster pointed out, an entirely new set of difficulties such as that atheists were not, in fact, positing that there was no God. One then began to wonder what all the fuss had been about.

The truth is that the so-called a-theists were really just engaged in the worst sort of legalism and semantic wriggling in attempt to reform their opinion so that they didn't have to defend it. Of course, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism was still necessary, as words generally perform the function of distinguishing between differences, and there were still serious intellectual differences between agnosticism and atheism. For instance, we still need, today, a word to distinguish between the person who just doesn't know and is willing to concede that this or that particular God could very well exist and another person who thinks it's all BS.

The question the atheists were trying to avoid was "Why is atheism correct or more likely true?" The answer, of course, could only be reasonably stated in the form of a rational argument, and historically atheists have failed in this task. Now someone is likely to reiterate Dawkins's canard about "proving a negative" or to try to revivify the now failed verification principle or some empirical evidentiary obligations, but the problem is more basic than that. I assume everyone understands the difference between an argument or reasonable justification and "proof". Any position one has, whether on golf or God, ought to have some reasonable justification ending in a positive affirmation of one's position. Or said another way: there ought to be some reason that one believes what one believes. So if one believes there is no God, then one ought to have some reason for doing so, and the reason ought to logically conclude with "thus there is no God."

The retreat into a-theism is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. It is an attempt to escape the intellectual burden for a belief that is probably unjustified, which is not to say that God necessarily exists, but rather there are no reasons he can't. Everyone involved in the actual discussion on this topic understands this. It's generally only the average person who has swallowed the New Atheist propaganda whole that thinks a-theism is reasonable.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What I find most exasperating about this forum is that one can leave for an extended period of time and return to find the exact same persons having the exact same conversation filled with the exact same errors.

Maybe you shouldn't return, then.

[stuntpickle]

Maybe you shouldn't return, then.

Maybe you should start reading books rather than simply talking about them.

[MorpheusSandman]

First, the notion of atheism as a sort of vague a-theism, meaning roughly without belief in God, really only gained mainstream cultural currency in the 1970s when George Smith wrote Atheism: The Case Against God.But WHO CARES? The denotations and connotations of words change over time, and to argue a word can't mean something because it used to didn't mean that is beyond ridiculous. There is a reality out there that words are supposed to connect to, and using only three terms to refer to the range and level and kinds of beliefs people have about God is incredibly limiting. I'll agree that fussing over semantics is stupid, but sometimes we have to to try and clearly express what we really feel. I can say "I do not believe God exists, but I do not claim certainty as to his non-existence" is much longer than saying "I'm an agnostic atheist" or "I'm a weak atheist" or whatever combination label you want to put on it. I could say I'm agnostic, but the connotations of that label are people who are really in the middle, who really don't know one way or the other, but because I think it's much less likely that no God exists rather than that God exists, such a connotation does not fit me.


The truth is that the so-called a-theists were really just engaged in the worst sort of legalism and semantic wriggling in attempt to reform their opinion so that they didn't have to defend it.One doesn't need to defend a position that is not making positive claims. That's like saying those who don't believe in Russell's Teapot needs to defend their position. We merely need to shoot down the reasons for believing in theism.


The question the atheists were trying to avoid was "Why is atheism correct or more likely true?" ...someone is likely to reiterate Dawkins's canard about "proving a negative"Atheism is more likely to be true if all of the evidential claims for theism are more than likely false. I don't remember Dawkins making the "you can't prove a negative" argument, but that's, indeed, a misunderstanding of proof in a logical setting. It's not about positives and negatives (because every positive claim has a corresponding negative claim and vice-versa), but about universals and particulars and what each is restricted to. The burden of proof becomes apparent when we compare the difficulty or ease with which two conflicting statements can be proven. I always make the purple banana example instead of the God example. Compare these two claims:

No purple bananas exist
Purple bananas exist

Superficially, they seem to be just be positives and negatives of opposing claims, but, this becomes apparently wrong if we switch them to their corresponding positive and negatives respectively:

Of all things that exist, nothing is a purple banana
Everything that exists is not something other than a purple banana

To make it even clearer, let's compare the two positives:

Of all things that exist, no things are purple bananas
Of all things that exist, some things are purple bananas

If we ask the simple question "what does it take to prove either statement?" then it becomes clear which is easier. To prove some things are purple bananas merely requires producing a purple banana! To prove no things are purple bananas requires producing everything in existence!

This is sometimes rephrased as the black swan argument, but the same thing applies in all cases. We're talking about distribution and what that means to proof. To prove God doesn't exists means knowing everything there is to be known about the universe (and maybe beyond) and being able to say conclusively that nothing out there matches God's description. To prove God merely requires producing God in some way that's verifiable, ie, in ways that are not subject to subjective distortions of reality, through cognitive biases, and logical errors.


Any position one has, whether on golf or God, ought to have some reasonable justification ending in a positive affirmation of one's position.Completely wrong. Bayes' Theorem tells us otherwise. Inductive probabilities are all we have when it comes to matters of the unknown, and God can't be anything other than an unknown, hence every claim to either absolute positive is a distortion of reality. It's the kind of "faith" that pushes our beliefs to one of the poles of certainty, even when reality does not comply. That kind of absolute thinking is what gets people into trouble. One can however show that God is very unlikely based on Bayesian reasoning, and show that he is unlikely enough not to believe.


The retreat into a-theism is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.Actually, it's the best kind of rational honesty that acknowledges that as long as we're talking about the unknown we cannot be sure, no matter how much we convince ourselves that we are. You really need to catch up with the 21st Century and the fact that humanity's finite understanding necessitates the need for probability reasoning rather than naive claims towards boolean certainty.

[stuntpickle]

But WHO CARES? The denotations and connotations of words change over time,

I assure you I attended elementary school and understand both connotation and denotation. What I think you don't understand is that the evolution of a-theism was not a natural one that would require a descriptivist dictionary to honor it. It was a calculated effort to obscure the actual argument.


One doesn't need to defend a position that is not making positive claims.

Can you really not see the fallacious nature of this statement? You're begging the question. If we have a disagreement on whether atheism is truly making assertions, you do not get to bypass the disagreement in order to state the entailments of your position.

This is what's so frustrating about this forum. To even have a conversation on here requires that one weed through a list of fallacies and other errors to help others identify the actual points of contention


That's like saying those who don't believe in Russell's Teapot needs to defend their position. We merely need to shoot down the reasons for believing in theism.

Here we go again.... Are you really invoking the standards of an early 20th Century positivist? You do realize Russell's worldview and his ideas about falsifiability have been fairly well refuted, right? You see, you're implying positive claims about evidentiary obligations that no one really adheres to today. If you really want to invoke Russell's ideas about falsifiability, then I suppose you're also willing to debar any truths not empirically verifiable or made in synthetic statements, such as killing homosexuals is bad. The problem I see with your statements here is that you have missed the last century of philosophy. Nearly no philosopher accepts Russell's notions about falsifiability today.

Can you, by the way, provide a rational argument for the existence of Russell's teapot?


Atheism is more likely to be true if all of the evidential claims for theism are more than likely false.

Look, you needn't pretend to instruct me in probabilistic logic or Bayes, as I assure you I am well acquainted.

Again, we have an intolerable incoherence in your statement. If atheism is not asserting anything then what would the statement "Atheism is true" mean in the context of the discussion? If atheism is simply a statement about your lack of belief, then its truth is independent of any proposition about God. This is an absurd conversation in which I am forced to keep pointing out the absurdity. Can you really not see it?

I am not trying to debate the existence of God. I am trying to demonstrate the problems with a-theism (NOT atheism), and you are inadvertently aiding me in the demonstration.

[Alexander III]

For anyone interested in a perspective of atheism which is not tainted by 20th century philosophical superfluities. I could suggest Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism.

It is a damn well written essay, and he makes some valid points, on the real and everyday, instead of discussing various implications which have no relation to either the atheist of the man of religion.

[stuntpickle]

For anyone interested in a perspective of atheism which is not tainted by 20th century philosophical superfluities. I could suggest Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism.

It is a damn well written essay, and he makes some valid points, on the real and everyday, instead of discussing various implications which have no relation to either the atheist of the man of religion.

Always refreshing to see someone so flagrantly display his philistinism.

[MorpheusSandman]

What I think you don't understand is that the evolution of a-theism was not a natural one that would require a descriptivist dictionary to honor it.All I can say to this is: :rolleyes:


If we have a disagreement on whether atheism is truly making assertions, you do not get to bypass the disagreement in order to state the entailments of your position.Perhaps some atheists are making assertions, but the vast majority I see are actually refuting positive claims made by theists. Refuting claims made is very different than putting forth independent claims. Perhaps atheists do that, but I can't imagine them doing it completely independently of theistic claims to the contrary. I'm fairly sure that scientists would be more than happy to just get on with doing science without having to worry about convincing people to believe what they have to say about how reality works over people who are believing texts that are thousands of years old and existed long before modern science. I'm an atheist of the type that I don't feel the need to make any positive assertions against God's existence, but merely need to refute those positive assertions offered for his existence.


You do realize Russell's worldview and his ideas about falsifiability have been fairly well refuted, right?:lol: Karl Popper was alive almost through the entirety of the 20th Century and he was the one that really popularized falsifiability. You talk about synthetic statements, but that's a concept that goes back to the origins of philosophy, and you're accusing me of missing out on the 20th Century? Really? Plus, why in the world are you conflating moral philosophy ("it's wrong to kill homosexuals") with philosophy of science, which is clearly what I was talking about?


Can you, by the way, provide a rational argument for the existence of Russell's teapot?As much as one can provide a rational argument for the existence of God.


If atheism is not asserting anything then what would the statement "Atheism is true" mean in the context of the discussion? It depends on what discussion we're having. If we're defining atheism to mean "lack of belief," then "atheism is true" would be true if, indeed, I lacked a belief! If we're defining atheism to mean "the claim that God doesn't exist," then "atheism is true" would be true if, indeed, God doesn't exist. I already stated I'm using atheism in the former sense and am not claiming absolute knowledge as to God's existence or non-existence (agnosticism). I lean closer to accepting "God doesn't exist" as true because no positive claims for God's existence holds water in any rational discourse that's actually connected to reality and not the fog of vague language and the limits of our knowledge concerning reality.


I am trying to demonstrate the problems with a-theism (NOT atheism), and you are inadvertently aiding me in the demonstration.No, you, like most philosophers, are making a fuss over semantics where no fuss needs to be made. As long as you know what I'm talking about (and I went out of my way to make it clear) it shouldn't matter what words I'm using.

But I will repeat that you are dead wrong that atheists should feel obligated to make a positive claim for God's non-existence. That's like saying I should make a positive claim that a 1,000,000 sided dice won't roll a 1 when the probability is 1 in 1,000,000 it will. Why state a lie when I can state something much closer to (if not exactly) the truth? Stating absolute knowledge of God's existence is nothing short of such a distorted lie brought about by the fact people's brains don't like dealing in Bayesian rather than boolean states of existence.

[Alexander III]

Always refreshing to see someone so flagrantly display his philistinism.

Yes I am a damned philistine; to suggest as essay written by one of the finest poets in the english language, instead of various scientists or academics who approach the subject through absolute and by consequence almost ridiculous reason.

The ant which knows that it is an ant, and despite that attempts to understand the human - as opposed to the ant which thinks it'self a human trying to understand humans. I wonder, which of the two is admirable and which is ridiculous to such a degree that it makes the very subject a farce.

[MorpheusSandman]

^ Don't worry about it, Alex. You aren't a philistine by any stretch. I don't know what's going on on this forum lately with these new posters coming in and feeling at liberty to insult everyone who disagrees with them. I especially notice a certain attitude of self-aggrandized snobbery that's quite common when it comes to philosophy students. They think that unless you've read all the writings of so-and-so that you have no business discussing philosophical matters, nevermind the fact that they took the trouble to bring up such matters in a forum about that with people they know very well will not be familiar with such things. But instead of using their knowledge as a tool to teach and enlighten, they get their kicks by bashing people over the head with how little they know. The most intelligent people I've ever known or read about never felt the need to go around telling everyone how smart they were and how dumb everyone else was; they just let their writing do the talking for them.

[stuntpickle]

All I can say to this is: :rolleyes:

...which is not much more than you have said in respect to anything else.


Perhaps some atheists are making assertions, but the vast majority I see are actually refuting positive claims made by theists. Refuting claims made is very different than putting forth independent claims. Perhaps atheists do that, but I can't imagine them doing it completely independently of theistic claims to the contrary. I'm fairly sure that scientists would be more than happy to just get on with doing science without having to worry about convincing people to believe what they have to say about how reality works over people who are believing texts that are thousands of years old and existed long before modern science. I'm an atheist of the type that I don't feel the need to make any positive assertions against God's existence, but merely need to refute those positive assertions offered for his existence.

The "vast majority" you refer to is not engaged in a reasonable discussion. This is because New Atheism is not philosophical, but political.

You offer a straw man fallacy here by presuming that all theism is dependent upon sacred texts, when in fact it is entirely possible to be a deist based upon rational arguments alone.

I would say you're an atheist of neither this nor that type, but rather that you are no atheist at all. Even Bertrand Russell conceded that he was technically an agnostic, even though he behaved as an atheist. His concession owed to that he understood atheism was largely indefensible.


:lol: Karl Popper was alive almost through the entirety of the 20th Century and he was the one that really popularized falsifiability. You talk about synthetic statements, but that's a concept that goes back to the origins of philosophy, and you're accusing me of missing out on the 20th Century? Really? Plus, why in the world are you conflating moral philosophy ("it's wrong to kill homosexuals") with philosophy of science, which is clearly what I was talking about?

There's so much wrong here that it's difficult to tackle it.

First, you're begging the question again. If one makes a metaphysical argument about the existence of God, it is an egregious error to presume a position that precludes such statements altogether. This is the same error that Russell made: he presumed that all philosophy ought to be a philosophy of science, which is, today, called scientism--something almost no one adheres to.

Second, I'm talking about synthetic statements simply because Russell wanted to debar their use altogether. I'm not conflating moral philosophy with anything. I am demonstrating the absurdity of Russell's insistence on analytic statements. The disaster of logical positivism is that it precludes most every possible conversation--even one about itself. For instance, there is no way to arrive at an insistence on analytic statements, using analytic statements. Also, there is no way to empirically justify empiricism. You say you're talking about the philosophy of science, which is precisely your problem since the philosophy of science is largely irrelevant to a metaphysical discussion concerning God's existence. This is simply more question begging.

Third, Popper's main point regarded the impossibility of truth from induction, and the best he could manage was to deprive science of all truth-discerning power and describe it as an ever-changing description no one had any reason to believe.



As much as one can provide a rational argument for the existence of God.

It's always fun when the fish swallows the hook. Please demonstrate this without resorting to equivocation. Not holding my breath.....


It depends on what discussion we're having. If we're defining atheism to mean "lack of belief," then "atheism is true" would be true if, indeed, I lacked a belief! If we're defining atheism to mean "the claim that God doesn't exist," then "atheism is true" would be true if, indeed, God doesn't exist. I already stated I'm using atheism in the former sense and am not claiming absolute knowledge as to God's existence or non-existence (agnosticism). I lean closer to accepting "God doesn't exist" as true because no positive claims for God's existence holds water in any rational discourse that's actually connected to reality and not the fog of vague language and the limits of our knowledge concerning reality.

This section of your post is most telling. You chose to ignore my main point and address, instead, an ancillary one. This is precisely the problem. You are trying to avoid the devastating criticism simply because you probably recognize that it is, in fact, devastating. The truth is that your entire position crumbles because of a major flaw.

I want you to try to be honest and really focus on this.

If atheism is a statement concerning your lack of belief, then your atheism is true irrespective of the veracity of this or that argument for the existence of God since it is a description of your own personal disposition rather than an assertion about God. Thus you cannot pretend that your atheism satisfies the necessary criteria for your arguments about probabilistic logic. The inverse of proposition A is "not A". You're proposing an atheism of C, which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If proposition A is probably untrue, then we are only justified in assuming "not A", which is, in this case, an actual statement of atheism, which is, itself, precisely what you are saying you do NOT believe. It's an unworkable contradiction. Your entire statement of atheism is a fallacy since it presumes the falsity of the opposition to even be coherent.



But I will repeat that you are dead wrong that atheists should feel obligated to make a positive claim for God's non-existence. That's like saying I should make a positive claim that a 1,000,000 sided dice won't roll a 1 when the probability is 1 in 1,000,000 it will. Why state a lie when I can state something much closer to (if not exactly) the truth? Stating absolute knowledge of God's existence is nothing short of such a distorted lie brought about by the fact people's brains don't like dealing in Bayesian rather than boolean states of existence.

Stop erecting straw men. I have proposed nothing in regards to science. Metaphysical claims about the existence of God have nothing to do with science, and you are not at all justified in presuming science as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Your analogy is horrible and false. A better one is that you are precluding the possibility of rolling a 1 on a thousand-sided dice because dice do not, in and of themselves, conform to your diceless worldview. You beg the question at every opportunity.


Yes I am a damned philistine; to suggest as essay written by one of the finest poets in the english language, instead of various scientists or academics who approach the subject through absolute and by consequence almost ridiculous reason.

The ant which knows that it is an ant, and despite that attempts to understand the human - as opposed to the ant which thinks it'self a human trying to understand humans. I wonder, which of the two is admirable and which is ridiculous to such a degree that it makes the very subject a farce.

Nice straw man. Of course, I was calling you a philistine not because you suggested people read an essay by this or that poet, but because, in a fit of passive-aggression, you derided the previous philosophical conversation.

[Alexander III]

Nice straw man. Of course, I was calling you a philistine not because you suggested people read an essay by this or that poet, but because, in a fit of passive-aggression, you derided the previous philosophical conversation.

This! This stuff right here, yes I was deriding it, because it is something which I see and encounter continually, it is impossible to discuss something without someone resorting tho this. It is conglomerating words in certain patterns to make them meaningless. It it trying to use as many words to say absolutely nothing as possible. It is an insult to language and conversation, it is an insult to thought.

[stuntpickle]

This! This stuff right here, yes I was deriding it, because it is something which I see and encounter continually, it is impossible to discuss something without someone resorting tho this. It is conglomerating words in certain patterns to make them meaningless. It it trying to use as many words to say absolutely nothing as possible. It is an insult to language and conversation, it is an insult to thought.

So sayeth the arbiter of thought. There is nothing more tedious than a proselytizing minimalist.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Maybe you should start reading books rather than simply talking about them.

Yep. I don't read books. Though I need to figure out what those 70+ things made out of paper I read within the last 16 months were. I'm not good with neologisms.



So sayeth the arbiter of thought.
Irony.

[stuntpickle]

Irony.

There's a difference between holding someone accountable to conventions of rationality and berating someone for stylistic difference.

[MorpheusSandman]

...which is not much more than you have said in respect to anything else.Like begets like.


I would say you're an atheist of neither this nor that type, but rather that you are no atheist at all. Even Bertrand Russell conceded that he was technically an agnostic, even though he behaved as an atheist. His concession owed to that he understood atheism was largely indefensible.Again, I :rolleyes: Why in the world are you so obsessed with labels and whether someone IS or IS NOT an atheist or agnostic or both or neither? You're treating words like battlegrounds to be claimed for your team. You know someone is being intellectually dishonest when the other side goes out of their way to explain exactly what they mean in easily understandable words, yet the other side insists on saying they ARE or ARE NOT this-or-that label. Seriously. I don't care if you call me a plupperdiddle as long as you understand what my beliefs and claims are, because, really, that's all that matters here.


If one makes a metaphysical argument about the existence of God, it is an egregious error to presume a position that precludes such statements altogether.If one makes metaphysical arguments then they're a moron because we have absolutely zero evidence of anything metaphysical and we're right back to Russell's teacup. See, it's really a metaphysical teacup that is actually residing in a metaphysical realm that just happens to be superimposed over our own universe and revolving around the sun! "Metaphysical" is such a wonderfully pretentious way of saying "I don't have to prove what I say so nani nani boo boo!"


For instance, there is no way to arrive at an insistence on analytic statements, using analytic statements. Also, there is no way to empirically justify empiricism.No kidding, they're called axioms. They're the things we assume are true for the sake of seeing what can be produced from the theorems derived from them. Even though they apply a bit differently in philosophy than they do in math, the idea is the same. Analytical statements and empiricism do not have to prove themselves using their own method, they have to prove themselves using the truthfulness of what's discovered using those methods. And you'll excuse me for thinking we've found out far more about how things work using empiricism and analysis than we have using metaphysics, which I'm pretty sure has produced exactly zero testable hypotheses to date (which is miraculous considering how long it's been around!)


You say you're talking about the philosophy of science, which is precisely your problem since the philosophy of science is largely irrelevant to a metaphysical discussion concerning God's existence. Theists would like to think so, because it gives them a Get-out-of-jail-free card for explaining away why their beliefs don't allow them to make accurate predictions about the real world. It's the ol' dragon in the garage (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/), which is, ironically, nothing like how certain religious texts (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/) present proofs for their God's existence. I somehow doubt ancient civilizations would've been persuaded by purely metaphysical arguments if they didn't think there were some physical consequences to their beliefs, because they were too concerned with, you know, surviving the most common of things.


Please demonstrate this without resorting to equivocation.I did so above.


If atheism is a statement concerning your lack of belief, then your atheism is true irrespective of the veracity of this or that argument for the existence of God since it is a description of your own personal disposition rather than an assertion about God.Very well done! I'm glad you seemed to understand that part of the argument. Atheism can merely be a statement about one's lack of belief. It does not have to be a statement about their claim to the absence of God to any absolute degree.


Thus you cannot pretend that your atheism satisfies the necessary criteria for your arguments about probabilistic logic. The inverse of proposition A is "not A". You're proposing an atheism of C, which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If proposition A is probably untrue, then we are only justified in assuming "not A", which is, in this case, an actual statement of atheism, which is, itself, precisely what you are saying you do NOT believe. I can't help but be struck by the fact that this entire paragraph conveniently side-steps everything I said about absolute, polar, boolean, 0/1, true-false statements not being necessary (and, in fact, always being false in the most literal sense) when dealing with the unknown. Atheism can mean two different things at once (I know you may be shocked to learn words can have more than one meaning!). It can concern one's lack of belief (as discussed above), and it can concern statements about the non-existence of God. Since now you've switched to talking about the latter, I don't know what to say except to reiterate what I already said.

Of course the inverse proposition of "A" is "Not A," but you can also have "probably A" and "probably Not A" and, really, that's all you can have when dealing with the unknown. I say "probably Not A" (given the lack of evidence), and that "probably Not A" informs my belief, which is a lack of belief, but at the same time does not allow me to be certain enough to claim "Not A" as a proposition without adding "probably" before it. Likewise, I can assume "Not A," which you say is "an actual statement of atheism," but that just strikes me as incoherent because you're still insisting on pushing a statement concerning probabilities to a binary pole of true/false. It's still my 1,000,000 die example where you're insisting I must make a propositional statement about 1 NOT coming up, but I see no reason to do that when I can know the exact probability. Of course, I can't know the exact probability concerning God, but in my mind it's closer to 0% than 100%, and while I may live as if (assuming) it's 0%, that doesn't mean that accurately represents my probabilistic belief. It's just a way our brains scale to speed things up.


you are not at all justified in presuming science as the ultimate arbiter of truth.Now who's erecting strawmen?


A better one is that you are precluding the possibility of rolling a 1 on a thousand-sided dice because dice do not, in and of themselves, conform to your diceless worldview. What in the world? The analogy is that I put God as the "1" on the million-sided dice. I have no idea what you're trying to say about a diceless worldview... I guess my exclusion of the metaphysical? Well, as soon as someone provides me physical proof of the metaphysical, I'll be more than happy to jump on board but, until then, I'm still living in a physical universe and all metaphysical claims seem to have no measurable effect on that world and further seem to be little more than imaginative concepts that have no anchor in anything actual.


Nice straw man.I think you need to make your avatar one of a strawman begging the question so you can just stop (misusing) those terms.

[stuntpickle]

Again, I :rolleyes: Why in the world are you so obsessed with labels and whether someone IS or IS NOT an atheist or agnostic or both or neither? You're treating words like battlegrounds to be claimed for your team. You know someone is being intellectually dishonest when the other side goes out of their way to explain exactly what they mean in easily understandable words, yet the other side insists on saying they ARE or ARE NOT this-or-that label. Seriously. I don't care if you call me a plupperdiddle as long as you understand what my beliefs and claims are, because, really, that's all that matters here.

If we're in agreement about your beliefs, then there is absolutely no reason to shift the terminology around to suit you. We have a fairly good precedence for what the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" mean, but you know, as well as I do, that "agnostic" doesn't make such a good springboard for attacks on religion. It seems to me as though you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.


If one makes metaphysical arguments then they're a moron because we have absolutely zero evidence of anything metaphysical and we're right back to Russell's teacup. See, it's really a metaphysical teacup that is actually residing in a metaphysical realm that just happens to be superimposed over our own universe and revolving around the sun! "Metaphysical" is such a wonderfully pretentious way of saying "I don't have to prove what I say so nani nani boo boo!"

You know, this is probably the worst comment you've yet made. If one has a so-called "strong" belief in naturalism, then one believes in metaphysical naturalism. This is not an equivocation, as you might think. To even state a position of naturalism one is required to momentarily step outside that worldview to make the judgement that there is only nature, and that judgment is a metaphysical one. Even the most severe varieties of naturalism require metaphysics to state their naturalism.

And, no, we're not back to Russell's teacup. It seems as though you have at least some philosophical background, yet no logical one.


No kidding, they're called axioms. They're the things we assume are true for the sake of seeing what can be produced from the theorems derived from them. Even though they apply a bit differently in philosophy than they do in math, the idea is the same. Analytical statements and empiricism do not have to prove themselves using their own method, they have to prove themselves using the truthfulness of what's discovered using those methods. And you'll excuse me for thinking we've found out far more about how things work using empiricism and analysis than we have using metaphysics, which I'm pretty sure has produced exactly zero testable hypotheses to date (which is miraculous considering how long it's been around!)

Yet no one takes these particular axioms for granted outside science.

Again, you seem to have no clue what constitutes "metaphysics". I see that you have a thread on Craig's Kalam. The argument's first premise is a metaphysical judgment. Any statement suggesting what one OUGHT to do is a metaphysical one. The statement that there is, in fact, a universe is, itself, a metaphysical judgment.

Science alone will never be enough because we need a means by which to direct science in the manner that it ought to be directed. If you want to debar metaphysics, then you can never say what ought to be done. Without metaphysics there can be no imperative for science. Even if we, for some reason, decide to engage in science, there would be, without metaphysics, no way to determine whether we should use humans as test subjects.

Seriously, you are presenting major gaps in your philosophical understanding. You seem to think that metaphysics is synonymous with the "supernatural". "Extra-natural" is probably a better way to look at it. Previously I had thought you might be an undergrad studying philosophy, but it is now apparent that you really don't have much understanding of how philosophy works. I think you could even benefit from reading a Wikipedia article on metaphysics.




I did so above.

No you didn't. Do you know what standard logical form is? If you do, present the argument in that form please. As the only thing I find is a bald assertion along the lines of, voila, teacup.


Very well done! I'm glad you seemed to understand that part of the argument. Atheism can merely be a statement about one's lack of belief. It does not have to be a statement about their claim to the absence of God to any absolute degree.

Don't pretend to patronize me. You're fairly clueless on this topic. And stop mischaracterizing my statements as though they are in accord with your second-rate scientism.


I can't help but be struck by the fact that this entire paragraph conveniently side-steps everything I said about absolute, polar, boolean, 0/1, true-false statements not being necessary (and, in fact, always being false in the most literal sense) when dealing with the unknown. Atheism can mean two different things at once (I know you may be shocked to learn words can have more than one meaning!). It can concern one's lack of belief (as discussed above), and it can concern statements about the non-existence of God. Since now you've switched to talking about the latter, I don't know what to say except to reiterate what I already said.

There's no side-stepping. Apparently you just aren't capable of understanding.

I too can engage in the same obfuscation. My theism is not a statement about the existence of God, but simply an acknowledgement that I believe; thus it is senseless to prosecute an argument since I'm not really asserting anything other than my belief. It doesn't matter that this has nothing to do with traditional theism. <Insert some comic balderdash about connotation and denotation.> Okay, okay, so God might not really exist, but I'm still a theist even though my position might technically look no different from agnosticism. <Insert rudimentary explanation of probabilistic logic> Okay, okay, I have no idea what metaphysics means, but whatever.... There's no reason theism can't be some non-committal hokum that allows me to evade any serious criticism of my ideas. Oh, and Bayes!



Now who's erecting strawmen?

Still you.

Look, cut out the BS for a second. Let us suppose that belief in God exists on a continuum of certainty from absolute disbelief to absolute belief. If we are to investigate the subject, the investigation must be conducted within the context "God exists" VS. "God does not exist". I am not suggesting you should change your opinion; I am, however, suggesting that the monolithic shift in the argument to "God Exists" VS. "I don't believe in God" is idiotic.

[Logos]

Thread has degenerated too far into personal insults, flaming, trolling etc.

If you choose to continue with this type of behaviour on this site it can lead to infraction points being issued and / or an outright ban, with no further warning.

To any and all that this applies to, you have been warned :)

--