Agnostic: a pointless term?

[robvalue]

Nah, we kind of settled that. It seems I'm in the minority, and I understand the reasons people would like to keep it around. So I won't erase it from history.

I've just been doing massive rants to demonstrate what crocks of shit people believe, and to try and get them to think a little bit. It's my purpose in life.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think all elastic terms are silly; they permit a limited language to express the ineffable. I think it's important to outline how one is using the term, at some point.

Some are vapid, some are resonant, and how they are adjudged should be based on how they're being used. Words exist for a reason: to express the human experience. And sometimes, the human experience is ineffable, meaning that language cannot always express exactly what is being felt at the moment. This is why words have both denotations and connotations. Elastic words sometimes have connotative value which gives them utility in expressing the ineffable.

[robvalue]

Oh for sure. I'm not saying the words should never be used. I often use the words, they are great to express yourself.

What I meant is that they are not scientific and shouldn't be used in a serious argument, or to try and persuade someone else that they should hold a similar belief, or that your belief is rational.

I say shouldn't as advice of course, not as an edict And everyone is allowed to disagree with me, once.

If you guys could see what a useless twat I am, you'd never agree with anything I said.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, no, you're a smart sonofabitch, Rob. And yes, I agree that those words have no place in a factual discussion. They speak to emotions, and that is the only sphere where they have meaning.

That was just the persnickety writer in me, welling up in outrage at the demeaning of my beloved language.

[robvalue]

Lol thanks You're very kind.

I love all words (proper ones that is not foreign ones) and I love the rich flavour a description can give.

I tend to separate my logical side from my artistic side. Mainly because I don't have an artistic side. Doh. I still draw like when I was 5. Probably worse as I haven't practiced. So I can only draw stick men mohammads!

---

Some of you may have noticed a new strategy I've tried to employ, meeting unfalsifiable ludicrous claims with more outrageous unfalsifiable claims. I'm not sure if it's had any effect. The opponent seems to laugh and dismiss me as crazy but wonders why people do the same to them. I've never even had to use my next lines of defence when asked for evidence like, "oh I forgot to mention he's invisible".

People look in the mirror and see what they want to see. I looked in the mirror and saw... My mother. Arghhh! I decided long hair didn't suit me after that and I've been traumatised ever since. Why do I look a bit like my mother? Atheistic science has no answer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's as good as using reasonable responses, for all the good they do most of the time.

I've seen two Christians online deconvert in the 15 or so years I've been active on the Internet in sites ranging from AOL's "Evolution is a Fact" chatroom to Adam Lee's Daylight Atheism blog, to TAF, here, and so on. Every so often, the seeds hits the soil at the right time, and germinates.

I don't think that will happen with the Christians in the minority here, though. Their refusal to listen is exceptional even for Internet Christians. So in this case, I'd say your approach is just fine. Maybe you could salt it with bits stolen from your favorite comedians?

[robvalue]

Now that's a neat idea! I even got taken seriously one time, as I was told they didn't believe in "my god".

Yeah, I highly doubt the resident theists here will ever critically examine their beliefs. But it's worth continuing the argument sometimes for the benefit of lurkers, who may just see something in what we're saying and give it some thought.

They have the same attitude on the atheist experience. They have only caused a handful of people who call in to rethink, although that itself is testament to their hard work. But they say they do it mainly for the listeners, and so that they can see which side is reasonable and which is grasping at straws.

My god, I have such a rush of amazing emotion though when someone does call in, saying they've thought about the questions the hosts asked them, and that they've become an atheist! It's like watching a butterfly being born. I feel so happy for them, and feel their pain about letting go of religion, and all the hostility they tend to get from their "friends" and family for turning.

---

Sometimes they ask, "What do I do now?" It's like they are born again, learning about the world anew. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but in a wonderful, beautiful way. They can finally see things clearly for what they are. And I feel their happiness when the hosts say you do whatever you want, there is no dogma, we don't need followers, you are free so go live your life!

[FreeTony]

My problem with the people describing themselves as Agnostics, is that they think there are three options:

Atheist - Believes no God exists
Theist - Believes a God exists
Agnostic - Doesn't know

Which is incorrect, yet I'd say this is sadly how the majority of people view it.

This would probably be fine if self described Agnostics didn't turn around and start accusing Atheists of being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that they definitively know a God doesn't exist. (e.g. David Mitchell)

[robvalue]

David Mitchell did that? I'm surprised.

Exactly, yes, that is my motivation to try and show why I find it redundant. It's viewed as a middle ground between atheism and theism.

The thing is, say you address a particular God claim (if someone manages to actually make one properly). They claim they know the God exists. You evaluate all the evidence and you come to the conclusion that the likelihood of the claim being correct is 50%. Do you accept the claim? No.

You reject the claim (if you understand how claims work) because there is not enough evidence to believe the claim is true beyond reasonable doubt. They are claiming to know the God exists, but actually they could do no better than a coin toss on average.

So you are an agnostic atheist.

But you are a much weaker version than an agnostic atheist like me who may put the likelihood of the claim being correct at say 0.00001%.

Remember, you are assessing their claim that they know that this God exists, and whether that claim is justified. If you reject the claim, you are saying I do not believe YOU when you say you KNOW this God exists. I am not saying the God does not exist.

If instead you claimed a God was as likely as not to exist, I would accept that claim in my original example. But not in the second, much lower probability estimation.

[ManMachine]

Err, I'm not sure. It could be a pointless term but on the other hand it might not be. The evidence is inconclusive.

MM