(June 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

---

(June 23, 2017 at 2:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Neat little description of the relationship between atheism and agnosticism.


An agnostic atheist is how I'd describe myself, though with certain definitions of gods I'd feel confident saying they definitely don't exist (a god that violates the laws of logic, for example).

Is there any well-formed definition of God about which you are agnostic, or only the general idea?

I'd say I'm gnostic on the absence of Abrahamic gods, Krshna, etc. etc.: I'm a gnostic atheist.  But on the general question "Do you believe God exists?" then I find it very hard to answer that: under some definitions, I may think God is necessary, under others, impossible.  It's a kind of quantum superposition, where the answer is determined by how we interact with it, rather than any truth value of its own.

For example, if you say, "God is that which allows for existence rather than non-existence" I'd say it's a pretty unusual definition, but it's necessarily true, and mysterious enough maybe to be worth calling it that.

For what it's worth, any god that is as simplistic as "God is that which allows for existence rather than non-existence" is literally defining god into existence, and I don't even bother with those.  It's not even cogent enough to have a position on - I could define god as the physical laws of the universe if I wanted.

Like I said, I'm agnostic on the existence of "god or gods," but when it comes to specific gods I'd be more gnostic (like the ones you mention).

Gad! Why is it everything having to do with religion is so difficult to speak about clearly? Oh, maybe it's because these 'god' critters are so poorly defined. Anyhow, I do accept both the agnostic and the atheist labels as applying to myself.

To the degree that gods are particular characters like the DC or Marvel superheroes I am thoroughly an atheist. I believe they are all works of fiction with no location in the world beyond. So if Superman is not real, neither is Jehovah or Odin.

But there is the rub. What the hell is a god anyhow? If you think of god as something intra-psychic, as an often occurring feature of some peoples psychology, then sure those are probably as real as "id" and "ego". I don't necessarily think that people who feel they commune with god in prayer are lying. If the 'god' they are communing with counts, then yeah I suppose gods can exist. But I don't know if they do because I can't look inside them and see if what they describe is actually going on. So I'm agnostic about the existence of 'personal' gods on a case by case basis.

But presumably when the question of god belief comes up, most often it is a mega/omni, creator being that is being asked about. I have no doubt that that sort of rubbish is just silly. No doubts whatsoever. But if you want to understand what role -if any- god belief has had in shaping our species then it really isn't any such literal funny stuff like that. Gods as a topic is only interesting at all as a psychic artifact, not a literal one.

That's a good point about personal gods...but I'd suggest that most or even -all- god believers would not be satisfied with having their god categorized as such.  It's not just a voice in their head.  They don't think that people who have voices in their head have god in their heads..they think those people are crazy - just like the rest of us.

I think it's fairly clear that this idea of a god, while creative and very permissive..and maybe even what the reported phenomena actually -is-, it's definitely -not- what they mean by a god, and so it's existence would not..even to them, qualify as an existent god.  Just crazy people. In your case, believing that they had a voice in their head would not be linguistically or logically equivalent to belief in a god.

Right, god isn't what they actually experience.  It's what they infer is what it comes from and what it means.

Admittedly, no believer I've ever talked to about it has seemed any too pleased with the idea of a scaled down god.  Too bad.  I think they could be very happy with it.  The decrease in cognitive dissonance alone should seal the deal.  Unfortunately they don't think anything that just comes from them can be good or important enough.  I think they settle for a too limited notion of themselves.

(June 23, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Right, god isn't what they actually experience.  It's what they infer is what it comes from and what it means.

-and gl telling them that, even if you could demonstrably show it to them to be true with their own brain...lol.  

Quote:Admittedly, no believer I've ever talked to about it has seemed any too pleased with the idea of a scaled down god.  Too bad.  I think they could be very happy with it.  The decrease in cognitive dissonance alone should seal the deal.  Unfortunately they don't think anything that just comes from them can be good or important enough.  I think they settle for a too limited notion of themselves.

There's a line of thought, I'll try to source it, about our concepts of god shrinking or enlarging in direct relation to our current self appraisal.  When life is going well and we are successful..we have a tendency to interpret those results as having been importantly directed by ourselves...but when we feel small or powerless or incompetent and things aren't going well..god - an afterthought in good times, becomes big enough to cast shade on the universe. There's a correlation, too, between secular or national power and religious immanence. Commonly alluded to by the difference in tone in a place when the public feels more "god bless us" or "god save us".

I guess I'm technically an Agnostic Atheist. I'm reeeeeeeeaaaallly sure god doesn't exist. I accept there's a really tiny sliver of a chance because we don't know everything. I would say that chance is far less than the chance I get struck by lightning as I type.

I have no issue with anyone calling themselves an agnostic.

(June 23, 2017 at 4:01 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: For what it's worth, any god that is as simplistic as "God is that which allows for existence rather than non-existence" is literally defining god into existence, and I don't even bother with those.  It's not even cogent enough to have a position on - I could define god as the physical laws of the universe if I wanted.

That's right. I think almost all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, would define gods similarly: they are subjective agents, they are massively powerful, and perhaps they are immortal. Even there, I think a lot of us here would suspect that there might very well be some kind of intelligence so incomprehensibly vast that it would seem like a god, much like we are something like gods in relation to the bacteria within us.

It's when the gods start looking like bald monkeys and getting caught up in human drama that the bullshit alarm really has to start blaring.

I suspect that the definition "God is the Universe" is a bait and switch. Once people accept this "God" as being real, then the goalposts get moved to us having to stop masturbating in the shower to avoid hellfire, or having a duty to hit our wives, but with a stick no thicker than our thumbs.

(June 23, 2017 at 7:49 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote: I guess I'm technically an Agnostic Atheist. I'm reeeeeeeeaaaallly sure god doesn't exist. I accept there's a really tiny sliver of a chance because we don't know everything.  I would say that chance is far less than the chance I get struck by lightning as I type.

I have no issue with anyone calling themselves an agnostic.

You're technically not, if you're really sure god doesn't exist.   You are a "gnostic atheist", like me...cheers. 

No thinking person with functional braincells completely rules out the possibility that they are wrong. OFC it's a possibility...it's -always- a possibility. Theres no thing or system or method on earth that completely rules out that possibility. If we were wrong™, and things were different™...we would be wrong and things would be different...but there's simply no indication of that.

I am an agnostic atheist in much the same way and to much the same degree as I might be agnostic about the proposition that I need to breath air to survive.

(June 23, 2017 at 8:10 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 7:49 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote: I guess I'm technically an Agnostic Atheist. I'm reeeeeeeeaaaallly sure god doesn't exist. I accept there's a really tiny sliver of a chance because we don't know everything.  I would say that chance is far less than the chance I get struck by lightning as I type.

I have no issue with anyone calling themselves an agnostic.

You're technically not, if you're really sure god doesn't exist.   You are a "gnostic atheist", like me...cheers. 

No thinking person with functional braincells completely rules out the possibility that they are wrong.  OFC it's a possibility...it's -always- a possibility.  Theres no thing or system or method on earth that completely rules out that possibility.  If we were wrong™, and things were different™...we would be wrong and things would be different...but there's simply no indication of that.

That's interesting. It's possible I'm being more nuanced than necessary. I'm going to be thinking about this.