RE: What is in a label?
January 2, 2009 at 8:49 am
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2009 at 9:16 am by Kyuuketsuki.)
(January 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm)CoxRox Wrote: Out of curiosity, why do you not accept the validity of 'not knowing'? Does this only apply to a would-be supernatural being/thingymebob/absent fucker or to anything at all?
Because I do not accept agnosticism as a valid position (as distinct from atheism) and yes, I'm referring specifically to to matter the claims regarding a god or gods (though I suppose it could be applied to any other equally unsubstantiated belief).
Kyu
(January 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: No no, he means the knowledge issue is separate from the theism/atheism label. Theism is believing in supernatural deities, atheism is not believing it. It is not the belief that supernatural deity doesn't exist. Knowledge is the gnostic factor, you either know it or you don't know if one exists, gnostic or agnostic. So being sure or not does not come into play for the theistic atheistic question.
Although you're right that the "knowledge" is separate from the label, I wouldn't quite put it that way
Given that the existence of a god or gods is unsubstantiated all we have is a claim with no validatable evidence, the theist therefore believes/advances that claim that there is a god (is "with god"), the atheist does not (simply rejects it) but the important thing to note (especially when you consider the stance apparently taken by most rational atheists) is that the atheist does not literally reject a god or gods (not believing there are any gods to specifically reject), he/she rejects the claim to that god or gods. No atheist can rationally claim (as hard or supported fact) that there are no gods, as that position is every bit as illogical/unsubstantiated as the claim that the same exist, and must remain philosophically open to the idea that there might be one every bit as much as there might be a Pastafarian god, an Invisible Pink Unicorn or Odin.
Then we come to that rather stupid idea about "not knowing" whether there is or is not a given god ... firstly no one actually knows (not even the theists) and secondly the agnostic is rejecting claims to deity every bit as much as the atheist because even when they claim the grey area doubting position they are just rejecting current claims but not wanting to fully commit to the probability that there are no gods. My assumption (because I can't for the life of me think of a reason why anyone would think it's acceptable to say "I don't know" is a respectable philosophical position in respect of something for which there exists bugger all validatable evidence) is that the agnostic doesn't like the harder image that atheism has (an image, it is worth noting, that has been cleverly created by theists rather than atheists).
My only comment on that other definition of agnosticism (that the existence of god/gods is unknown and unknowable) is that it is little but philosophical bullshit.
In essence I am saying that the agnostic and atheist position are basically one and the same and the only reason that atheism (circa. 1587) is correct is that it has historical seniority (in English) over that of agnosticism (Huxley, 1869).
Kyu
