Why Agnostic?

[Purple Rabbit]

@ leo-rcc: you’re not the first to invent the fallacy of argumentum ad internettiam (“something is true if there is a website that says so”), but I reckon this was your tongue in cheek mode.

What gave it away? The smiley at the end of "Problem solved" perhaps?

Definitely, but also the hailing of Adrian of your remark as an asset to the discussion.

[leo-rcc]

For what it's worth, I don't like Dawkins' scale, because I do think it is making the whole issue much more difficult than it needs to be. To me the term atheist is good enough as a label.

[Purple Rabbit]

For what it's worth, I don't like Dawkins' scale, because I do think it is making the whole issue much more difficult than it needs to be. To me the term atheist is good enough as a label.

So does that mean that you dislike any scale?

[leo-rcc]

I guess so. I don't need any scale to explain that I am an atheist.

[Kyuuketsuki]

No because I don't accept I'm incorrect ... I think Dawkins' scale makes more sense than yours and I think the term agnostic atheist is wishy washy. I'm also getting bored of arguing it.

Yet you haven't actually argued why you think it is wishy-washy (or if you have I have missed it, apologies). What definition of agnosticism do you accept then, and why do you accept it?

Because the definition of agnosticism (whichever one it is) makes bugger all sense ... the agnostic is simply a sit-on-the-fence atheist IMO. I've posted before about it and we've disagreed (well there's a surprise). Combining the straight-forward concept of atheism with the crap that is agnosticism (at least as far as the two definitions of which I am aware) is bullshit hence "wishy-washy").

Do you really think that there can be a mid-position between "belief" and "non-belief"? I don't think it can be a three-way choice. It's an either-or situation, and whichever way you spin it, either you do believe or you don't.

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

Kyu

---

For what it's worth, I don't like Dawkins' scale, because I do think it is making the whole issue much more difficult than it needs to be. To me the term atheist is good enough as a label.

Now THAT (even though I think his makes more sense than Adrian's) I can agree with.

Kyu

[Ryft]

What are those presuppositions, and how are they "certain"?

In order to identify ("what") and evaluate ("how") the presuppositions which undergird a given set of beliefs, at minimum the set of beliefs must be identified (for example, there is no one universal set of atheistic beliefs; Solipsism, Buddhism, Nihilism, Scientism, Secular Humanism, etc. are possible atheistic beliefs). Once a specific set of beliefs are identified, the presuppositions can be identified and evaluated.

Again, I believe what fr0d0 is arguing—and correctly—is that the presuppositions which undergird theistic beliefs are no less 'certain' than the presuppositions which undergird atheistic beliefs, when they are drawn out and comparatively evaluated under their own terms.

[Purple Rabbit]

To me the god concept is [inseparable] from the moral question.

Whether or not X exists would seem to be [a not indissoluble] matter from whether or not X is a moral entity. If there is sufficient reason to affirm that X exists (by whatever criteria you hold), should you not do so? I cannot rationally deny that Charles Manson exists on the gounds that he is a morally reprehensible entity.

I am not saying that existence is depending on moral supremacy or vice versa. I am only saying that the moral question to me is an equally important one to ask about the god concept evaluated and therefore a scale without this dimension is rather unsatisfying to me. Making a scale for the existence question is a choice out of interest.

What I find fascinating is that most religious people without any reserves embrace divine moral, whatever it is, no questions asked.

[Ryft]

The agnostic is simply a sit-on-the-fence atheist, in my opinion. ... Combining the straightforward concept of atheism with the crap that is agnosticism (at least as far as the two definitions of which I am aware) is bullshit—hence, 'wishy-washy'.

Can a person believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe, given cogent arguments for the probability thereof? Is it possible for that very same person to admit not knowing whether or not such life exists, given the lack of empirical evidence for it?

If not, why not?

I am only saying that the moral question, to me, is an equally important one to ask about the god concept evaluated ...

The question is interesting and important—and practically impossible for any conceivable scale or chart, given the sheer number of deities that are and have been proposed. The scale would have to somehow account for the literally hundreds upon hundreds of readily identifiable ones, each with its own moral dimension to consider and evaluate. Compounding this are the sheer number of ethical theories that people hold; the scale would have to somehow account for all of these. To pull off a scale or chart that manages to accomplish all this?

Heh, I think it is difficult enough just trying to account for the various iterations of theism, atheism, and apatheism!

[Purple Rabbit]

I am only saying that the moral question, to me, is an equally important one to ask about the god concept evaluated ...

The question is interesting and important—and practically impossible for any conceivable scale or chart, given the sheer number of deities that are and have been proposed. The scale would have to somehow account for the literally hundreds upon hundreds of readily identifiable ones, each with its own moral dimension to consider and evaluate. Compounding this are the sheer number of ethical theories that people hold; the scale would have to somehow account for all of these. To pull off a scale or chart that manages to accomplish all this?

Heh, I think it is difficult enough just trying to account for the various iterations of theism, atheism, and apatheism!

He, I do not walk that road of collecting god concepts like stamps in all variaties, colours, flavours and what-hef-joe-thingyness. So I need no scale, but warn me if some genius like that surfer dude invents a multi-dimensional lattice to nail the suckers. That'll teach 'm trying to create the greatest pan galactic freak show ever....for half a minute.

[Ryft]

... but warn me if some genius like that surfer dude ...

Sorry, who? Am I detecting a cultural reference that this Canadian might not be aware of?