Agnostic: a pointless term?

[Whateverist]

I'm speaking in black and white? That's exactly what I am arguing against! Reread the thread! I've been saying all along that people's beliefs have a near infinite nuance - which is why labels are inaccurate and of little use.

Well, I admit I haven't been following the thread that closely and perhaps I did misunderstand.

I think you misunderstand what I have been saying. I'm not claiming that all non-believers are the same - only that they have the same foundation of the assumption of a godless universe.

See, I wouldn't have any use for such a belief. I am predisposed to seek natural answers to all questions. Specifying particular alternatives to a natural account which I don't accept doesn't seem necessary or useful. It isn't foundational to the way I think to begin by ruling out gods.

I reject any attempt to pigeonhole us regarding practical issues based on our individual flavor of non-belief.

Agreed.

What confused me was when you said:
[quote='AFTT47' pid='863784' dateline='1422926653']
Practical strong-atheism. This is the same thing Christians do with every other God concept out there.

Maybe we just mean something different by "strong" atheism. For me that signifies the positive belief that gods/God does not exist. It isn't a question of certitude. I'm plenty confident but I don't think that makes me a strong atheist. I lack the necessary interest to decide what I believe regarding gods in light of the piss poor way in which they are defined along with my general disinterest in non-natural accounts. So I prefer to simply observe that no belief in gods animates any of my decisions. No rejection of gods is necessary and frankly they don't strike me as promising enough to warrant the effort.

Sorry if I misunderstood your position.

[ManMachine]

First off, I think arguments over definitions are silly. Words like atheist and agnostic have never been clearly and unambiguously. Arguments over who counts as atheists or agnostics are mere verbal disputes and are pointless wankery. I love that word: wankery. Teeheeheh.

ManMachine post sparked my interest.

Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.

Argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy meaning there is nothing wrong with the form of the argument and there are always exceptions to the rule of thumb. If you have good reasons to think there would be evidence for something, you look, and don't find it then it's okay to go with a low unlikelihood. If someone claims, "there's an plain old elephant in the room," and I don't see one then I'm calling shenanigans.
I think most people asserting gods do not exist are just going with the null hypothesis and an informal application of occam's razor. Really I don't see a point in splitting hairs on words like "know." All "strong atheists" (I hate this term by the way) are saying is that the likelihood is low.

Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.

It really boils down to what you mean by 'leap of faith.' I'm guessing you mean the following: "leap of faith, an act or instance of accepting or trusting in something that cannot readily be seen or proved." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/l...of%20faith

I don't have a problem with this. Since we have to just go along with axioms and other times have to pick arbitrary stopping points so not to get dragged into a bottomless pit of arguments.

Yes, which was kind of my point.

I'm reminded of a phrase 'cognitive explosion', which describes the explosion of potential possibilities if we do not use assumptions to frame our thinking.

The interesting question is what is the interrelationship between these ideas, can ideas such as agnosticism exist without the framework of faith-based ideas such as atheism or theism?

MM

[AFTT47]

whateverist, note that I said "practical" strong atheist. You made it clear that you weren't an actual one but proceeded on the assumption that there is no God anyway - hence a strong-atheist for all practical purposes. It's along the same line as my contention that none of these nuances of non-belief come into play at all in our practical lives. We all proceed as if God does not exist. The only difference between an agnostic and a strong-atheist is in the logical realm.

[Pizza]

The interesting question is what is the interrelationship between these ideas, can ideas such as agnosticism exist without the framework of faith-based ideas such as atheism or theism?

MM

The word agnosticism has broader meaning and can be applied outside of the issue over gods. This is especially true if we are using T.H. Huxley's definition.

[wiploc]

All "strong atheists" (I hate this term by the way) are saying is that the likelihood is low.

Strong atheists (I love this term, by the way) are people who believe that gods don't exist. What they say doesn't matter, and how they came to have their belief doesn't matter.

Plantinga says that he cannot disbelieve in god. Can't do that, regardless of the state of the evidence. So you can picture him in a position where he'd have to say, "Well, yes, the odds of god existing are low---but I believe in him anyway!"

[Pizza]

All "strong atheists" (I hate this term by the way) are saying is that the likelihood is low.

Strong atheists (I love this term, by the way) are people who believe that gods don't exist.

I know that. I'm a "strong atheist."

---

What they say doesn't matter, and how they came to have their belief doesn't matter.

Huh?

Plantinga says that he cannot disbelieve in god. Can't do that, regardless of the state of the evidence. So you can picture him in a position where he'd have to say, "Well, yes, the odds of god existing are low---but I believe in him anyway!"

Was I talking about Plantinga?

[YGninja]

Does that help you to misrepresent, play dumb or something?

We're done here.


.

So you're never going to respond to these major points? I guess we are done, i accept your forfeiture.

[Creed of Heresy]

We're done here.


.

So you're never going to respond to these major points? I guess we are done, i accept your forfeiture.

---

I am a hard-line atheist. 7 on the Dawkins scale, I outright know for a fucking fact no gods exist.

Wanna know how I know? Because after 10,000+ attempts at the God Hypothesis being disproven, you have to eventually come to realize that the hypothesis is fundamentally wrong.

I know there are no gods like I know there are no unicorns. You can dance around and get into the semantics of "BUT YOU DON'T KNOW ABSOLUTELY!"

Yes. Yes I fucking do. My mind is completely concluded. I know for a damn fact no evidence for a god will ever come about, because over the course of humanity's existence, gods have been nothing more than the subject of imaginary stories used by those who had no other qualities that made them worthy of leadership other than the ability to lie to the illiterate to be rulers over the masses.

You can be agnostic if you want. But to me, an agnostic is simply an atheist who still entertains the possibility of something that never had any possibility to begin with. An agnostic is an atheist who is still dithering hesitantly.

All the proof you should need is the absolute total and utter lack of proof. The burden of proof is on the claimant. They have none. Ergo, there is no god, there are no gods, there never have been any gods, and there never will be any gods.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You can quite easily fully reject the Christian god as self-refuting but still be open to the notion that other 'gods' exist.

Indeed, would help if people defined what god they're talking about, but seeing as that's impossible, it's much easier (and accurate) to simply assume a personal god unique to the believer and work backwards.

[Creed of Heresy]

Still falls upon them to prove that god's existence.

If someone says the universe is god, fine, I can dig it. But given that the definition of a god has always been an intelligent entity of supernatural power and otherworldly presence, then such is what I shall always view it as. If someone calls a tree a god, it's still a tree to me, and a tree to the definition of the word. Someone wants to make subjective definitions on their own, fine, but it doesn't mean I have any intention of entertaining every last individual's fickle whims. Such a stance is likely to be viewed as me being an asshole. If so... Oh well.