RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 2, 2015 at 11:46 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 11:47 pm by ManMachine.)
(February 2, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: 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.
(February 2, 2015 at 11:11 am)ManMachine Wrote: 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.
Quote: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
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
