Defining "Atheism"

[downbeatplumb]

Let me provide you with some reasoning children...

The thing that always stuck with me is the idea that the cat (Erwin Schrödinger's cat) is BOTH alive and dead until it is observed. For me, the existence of God is in a similar box. Until we look inside, God both exists and doesn’t exist. The difference is that we have no way of looking into the box. While proving whether or not the cat is alive or dead is easily determined by observation (and in fact, determined by observation), in the case of God, that observation, the thing that makes it one or the other, is robbed from us because there is no way to prove of disprove the existence of God. So God both exists and does not exist eternally. While Pandora’s box is one we can never close, God’s box is a box we can never open.

This is why I can say that I neither believe in the existence of God nor do I disbelieve the existence of God. My belief is absolutely neutral because God simultaneously exists and does not exist.

This neutrality, to me, is the essence of Agnosticism. I cannot know, nor will I ever know, therefore I can never say. I must, logically, remain neutral on the matter.

That is one stupid argument for the 'maybe' existance of god.

In the thought experiment you know there was a cat, you know there is a box and you know there is a death dealing capsule with understandable properties.

There are no 'facts' in the god hypothosis.

personally I lump agnostics in with atheists, if you cant say that you believe in god then the automatic default is that you dont believe in god making you an atheist whether you like it or not.

[fr0d0]

You can never know that the cat is alive in the box DBP. The fact is missing. The presented facts have no bearing on that question.

Likewise a believer also cannot know, and is therefore also agnostic. The universe exists - but did God create it or not??

[Paul the Human]

That has no bearing on 'belief', though. The universe exists - but did God create it or not? I do not believe so... whether or not I can say that I know one way or the other.

[Welsh cake]

Precisely. It tells you about their knowledge; specifically, that on said issue their knowledge is either insufficient or non-existent ("I don't know"). What a person believes and what he knows are categorically different things. As I said, "I don't know" is an epistemic response, reflecting agnosticism (privation of gnosis, knowledge). It doesn't tell you whether they are an atheist or a theist ("it tells you nothing about their beliefs"), since both can answer "I don't know" to the question of God's existence; e.g., a fideist says, "I don't know that God exists but I believe he does."

Oh fuck, I forgot all about weak agnosticism, my apologies for wasting your time.

*sigh* I fear for every new thing I learn something else gets forced out of my finite memory, I'm forever relearning in a vicious cycle, my only comfort is that when I'm dead I can finally stop learning.

[fr0d0]

That has no bearing on 'belief', though. The universe exists - but did God create it or not? I do not believe so... whether or not I can say that I know one way or the other.

No, agnosticism is separate from belief. You're an agnostic atheist.

[Ryft]

(Your agnostic friend said) I neither believe in the existence of God nor do I disbelieve the existence of God.

So he rejects theism and strong atheism. All right, but what about weak atheism (non-belief in God's existence)? He missed a rather conspicuous category. If what he believes about reality, knowledge, values, etc., is "without God" or "godless" (Gk. atheos), then his belief system is atheistic, which means he is not neutral about God after all—that is, despite viewing God as an interesting thought experiment, his belief system would affirm that no deity is required.

Another statement he made was even more fascinating. He said the essence of agnosticism amounts to the following principle: "I cannot know, nor will I ever know; therefore, I can never say. I must, logically, remain neutral on the matter." This is fascinating because what he has done is make knowledge a predicate of belief; i.e., he must first know in order to believe. This confronts him with an intractable problem: if knowledge must come before belief, then he can never know anything and, thus, cannot believe anything. This agnostic principle he describes actually strips his empiricist epistemology of all meaning; as the very axioms upon which it must be built cannot be known (by definition, being axiomatic), he therefore cannot believe them. A system that cannot even start is permanently incapable of meaning.

[fr0d0]

I totally agree with all you've said there Arcanus. My friend is very aware of the futility of the quest to prove the existence of God, and that is more what he is addressing I think. It is only in the sphere of empirical knowledge that he is firmly agnostic.

[theVOID]

Let me provide you with some reasoning children...

The thing that always stuck with me is the idea that the cat (Erwin Schrödinger's cat) is BOTH alive and dead until it is observed.

*sigh*

This false interpretation is never going to die is it?

The cat is either dead or alive, it's as simple as that, the whole point is that we could not know the outcome of a random event until we have observed it.

God both exists and doesn’t exist.

That is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on these forums, I genuinely worry for the mental health of the person who wrote this....

The difference is that we have no way of looking into the box. While proving whether or not the cat is alive or dead is easily determined by observation (and in fact, determined by observation), in the case of God, that observation, the thing that makes it one or the other, is robbed from us because there is no way to prove of disprove the existence of God. So God both exists and does not exist eternally. While Pandora’s box is one we can never close, God’s box is a box we can never open.

Do we have an award for most profound display of idiocy? We should create one just for this.

This is why I can say that I neither believe in the existence of God nor do I disbelieve the existence of God. My belief is absolutely neutral because God simultaneously exists and does not exist.

A 'neutral' position regarding the existence of God is still atheism because the person in question is "without belief in god(s)"

You can never know that the cat is alive in the box DBP. The fact is missing. The presented facts have no bearing on that question.

So now you get it right? Because this is NOT the same thing as you said earlier that the cat is BOTH dead and alive simultaneously.

Another statement he made was even more fascinating. He said the essence of agnosticism amounts to the following principle: "I cannot know, nor will I ever know; therefore, I can never say. I must, logically, remain neutral on the matter." This is fascinating because what he has done is make knowledge a predicate of belief; i.e., he must first know in order to believe. This confronts him with an intractable problem: if knowledge must come before belief, then he can never know anything and, thus, cannot believe anything. This agnostic principle he describes actually strips his empiricist epistemology of all meaning; as the very axioms upon which it must be built cannot be known (by definition, being axiomatic), he therefore cannot believe them. A system that cannot even start is permanently incapable of meaning.

Perfectly said.

[Tiberius]

The cat is either dead or alive, it's as simple as that, the whole point is that we could not know the outcome of a random event until we have observed it.

Erm, that's not how I learned it. From Wikipedia:

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

Then again, I'm not a physicist, and I prepare to stand corrected.

[fr0d0]

@ Void: I have no idea who you're arguing with. I think you need to apply yourself a bit more to the task.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

Then again, I'm not a physicist, and I prepare to stand corrected.

Your position as the observer places equal confirmation of the cat's mortality. "when we look in the box" isn't a possibility.