Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Brian37]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out the stumbling block of humans in science when they hit a gap far too many times that ends up with "well we cant figure out anything else so god did it". He points out that limits our discovery and slows it down. It is not a good way of thinking when you hit something you have yet to understand. The ethical open minded nature of scientific method is to go with established data that is confirmed and build on that. By discarding bad claims you open the door to knowledge. "I don't know" does not negate, nor should it, the use of a trash can to throw bad ideas in. Not only does it not negate it, it is the wise way to keep that door open.

FWIW, Neil deGrasse Tyson considers himself to be an agnostic.

You are not telling us something we don't already know. Neil still does not hold any belief in any god, he simply does not like the stigma of the word atheist. "Atheist" is "off", if he would simply use the word "agnostic" in reference to the future, he would know it is not in conflict with his current "off" position.

Neil is simply stuck on an old and improper definition of the word "agnostic". But if you ask him flat out if he currently believes in a god he'd say there is no good evidence to hold that position currently.

Agnostic is not a position itself. It is a qualifying word. Huxley improperly created that word and it has been misused since.

He is in reality an agnostic atheist. He currently has an empty glass or "off" as far as what he knows so far. In that context he is an atheist. "Agnostic" which he improperly uses as a position, in reality he is merely admitting he cannot claim absolute certainty about the future.

And if you watch his entire cosmos series even given that, he'd still agree with me that you do not have to cling to bad claims, or default to every claim being equal by default. And he would also agree with me that it is ok to use the trash can of bad ideas.


Technically and semantically only for me, and again based on our best current data, while admitting I am "agnostic" about the future, even given that, the likelyhood of a god being found is so infinitely remote, it still isn't going to hurt science to throw such a claim in the trash can.

Science is CURRENTLY pointing away from a god, as even being a requirement. And on top of that biological evolution and neurology and psychology prove that human perceptions are notoriously flawed. We also have tons of historical evidence of myths that were once believed to be fact and dead gods no one believes in today.

So right now, at this point in science and human history, the evidence is pointing to humans making up gods.

There is an evolutionary reason humans make up gods. The word for that is anthropomorphism. Humans projecting their own qualities on the world around them.

It is a very base reflection of a baby's desire to have the parent pay attention to them and protect them. It is a false perception no different than when someone sees a butterfly in an inkblot.

I am not saying any of that trying to be sarcastic. The above is literally the scientific reason false perceptions lead to claims of gods.

It is also the false perception that will lead a sports player to falsely think lucky socks or a lucky bat makes them successful. It is a result of selection bias and sample rate error and flawed perceptions.


In evolution, a flawed perception can lead to success, and still be based on a false perception. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful surrounding their society around fictional polytheistic gods the literally thought were real.

Ever see videos of a buck smash through windows? It isn't always because the deer got scared. Bucks in heat compete with other bucks. A buck can see its own reflection in a door or a window falsely thinking it is another buck.

God claims really amount to our species ignorance in failing to see all we are doing is projecting our own desires on the world around us. We create these gap answers to create groups, and to justify cooperation and justify dominating or defending ourselves from outsiders, just like a buck can mistake that reflection as a competing buck.

[bennyboy]

re: agnosticism

Bullshit. Agnosticism doesn't have to be seen as a confidence rating-- it is, in fact, a position, which I hold. When asked, "Do you think God exists," you have three perfectly coherent and distinguishable responses: 1) Yes, I think God exists; 2) No, I don't think God exists; 3) I don't know whether God exists.

[FatAndFaithless]

Benny, note the jump in subject from your responses 1 and 2, to response number 3. The first two address belief, the third addresses knowledge claims. They aren't the same thing.

There are only two responses to the question "Do you believe in God", and those are
1) Yes, I affirmatively believe in god.
2) Anything else that is not an affirmative belief in god.

Even if you say "I don't know if I believe in god" (which would be strange, as it would imply you don't know what's going on in your own head), you would still be in category 2, i.e. not having an affirmative belief.

A/gnosticism is about the claim to knowledge, whether or not you know god exists or claim it as an epistemological truth. It isn't a confidence rating, it just a claim to either not know for sure (agnosticism) or to claim to know for sure (gnosticism).

[abaris]

re: agnosticism

Bullshit. Agnosticism doesn't have to be seen as a confidence rating-- it is, in fact, a position, which I hold. When asked, "Do you think God exists," you have three perfectly coherent and distinguishable responses: 1) Yes, I think God exists; 2) No, I don't think God exists; 3) I don't know whether God exists.

There are gnostics and agnostics on either side.

So the extreme left/right position, in lack of a better word, would be "I know, god exists" and "I know, god doesn't exist".

I call myself an agnostic atheist, but I'm tending more to gnostic atheism when it comes to the biblical god.

[Brian37]

re: agnosticism

Bullshit. Agnosticism doesn't have to be seen as a confidence rating-- it is, in fact, a position, which I hold. When asked, "Do you think God exists," you have three perfectly coherent and distinguishable responses: 1) Yes, I think God exists; 2) No, I don't think God exists; 3) I don't know whether God exists.

"I dont know" only says "I don't know" it does not say what you claim not to know.

Now again, I get that you are taking the standard definition, I am telling you it is not a good definition.


I am giving you a BETTER definition.


Are you CURRENTLY agnostic about unicorns? You would still have to admit since you have not lived the future that "technically" you have to be "agnostic" since we cannot no with 100% certainty.

So in the case of claims of unicorns you could rightfully say that you are currently atheistic on that claim(currently you do not hold that position) but agnostic about what future evidence might change your position.

So the term agnostic atheist is not contradictory.


Past, present and future. Have to be taken into account. "agnostic" does not address anything by itself.

Now Huxley took a Greek prefix and a Greek suffix that were never used in ancient Greece together. But when you properly use them individually separately this is how they are defined.

Prefix "a"=without

Suffix="gnosis or gnostic"=knowledge.

NETHER that prefix or suffix say anything about subject matter or position. So the word has to be put in front of something for it to make sense.

If I could take a time machine back in time I would kick Huxley in the nuts for creating a word with an improper use.

---

Here is a simple thing you can literally do to understand my point.

Next time you are out in public, walk up to a complete stranger and say "I dont know", don't say anything else. I would bet my life they are going to say "You don't know what?" The simply repeat "I don't know". Keep repeating that and nothing else until they walk away from you because they think you are nuts.

That is why I say "I don't know" is not a position. It has to go in front of something to make sense.

[Losty]

I hate to say it, but you caught me.

*holds hands out*

Cuff 'em and bring me in. I'm tired of being on the run with this ponzy scheme of a philosophy of mine.

Be careful about asking to be chained while Losty's about . . .

What's the worst that could happen?

[robvalue]

The thing I find most ridiculous is this assertion that if something created the universe, it must be able to do anything, and knows everything. It points to the arrogance of mankind to think that anything more powerful or intelligent than us must be infinitely so, like we are one rung below an ultra-god.

[GrandizerII]

But if you ask him flat out if he currently believes in a god he'd say there is no good evidence to hold that position currently.

Exactly. That's what pretty much every atheist here is saying. No evidence => no reason to believe. The difference, it seems, is some of us are happy to say "I don't know" instead of "God does not exist".

Neil deGrasse, by the way, is your conventional agnostic. If the first video didn't make it clear, maybe this one will:





Take note of what he says at around 1:02.

Ok, you then say he is an agnostic atheist. Alright, that's what I am as well. What's the problem then?

[bennyboy]

Benny, note the jump in subject from your responses 1 and 2, to response number 3. The first two address belief, the third addresses knowledge claims. They aren't the same thing.

There are only two responses to the question "Do you believe in God", and those are
1) Yes, I affirmatively believe in god.
2) Anything else that is not an affirmative belief in god.

Even if you say "I don't know if I believe in god" (which would be strange, as it would imply you don't know what's going on in your own head), you would still be in category 2, i.e. not having an affirmative belief.

A/gnosticism is about the claim to knowledge, whether or not you know god exists or claim it as an epistemological truth. It isn't a confidence rating, it just a claim to either not know for sure (agnosticism) or to claim to know for sure (gnosticism).

It's not strange at all not to be able to resolve a question into a single answer, and many reasons why "I don't know" doesn't imply your assessment of your knowledge about something. For example, if I ask you "Do you think 'x' is true?" You could answer that you don't believe in 'x'. But you could also say, "Until you tell me what 'x' means, then I don't know whether I have a belief that represents it or not." I wouldn't say I default to a-xism because I'm incapable of forming an active belief.

So if you DEFINE God, I'm very likely to say that I'm either an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist. "God is Sky Daddy." Nope. "God is the subjective spark which makes us more than machines." Weird, but yep.

If you cannot adequately define God, then my position is: "wtf you talkin' about, Linus?"

---

I am giving you a BETTER definition.

Great. Define "better" while you're at it.

Are you CURRENTLY agnostic about unicorns? You would still have to admit since you have not lived the future that "technically" you have to be "agnostic" since we cannot no with 100% certainty.

I'm an agnostic a-unicornist, because my mind can resolve that question down to a single answer-- no, I don't believe unicorns are real, and in fact I believe they are false. The agnosticism isn't about unicorns-- it's about my confidence in my disbelief in unicorns.

So the term agnostic atheist is not contradictory.

No, it's not contradictory, and it probably desribes 90% of atheists.

Now Huxley took a Greek prefix and a Greek suffix that were never used in ancient Greece together. But when you properly use them individually separately this is how they are defined.

Prefix "a"=without

Suffix="gnosis or gnostic"=knowledge.

NETHER that prefix or suffix say anything about subject matter or position. So the word has to be put in front of something for it to make sense.

Answers are partially defined by the context in which they are given. If someone is unable to answer a question, or even to establish a leaning toward an answer, then agnosticism is itself a viable position.

Next time you are out in public, walk up to a complete stranger and say "I dont know", don't say anything else. I would bet my life they are going to say "You don't know what?" The simply repeat "I don't know". Keep repeating that and nothing else until they walk away from you because they think you are nuts.

That is why I say "I don't know" is not a position. It has to go in front of something to make sense.

Okay, let's try this. Is there a boobledyboo on my desk? Hint-- boobledyboo is a common household object.

Are you going to claim that you're an agnostic a-boobledybooist?

---

re: agnosticism

Bullshit. Agnosticism doesn't have to be seen as a confidence rating-- it is, in fact, a position, which I hold. When asked, "Do you think God exists," you have three perfectly coherent and distinguishable responses: 1) Yes, I think God exists; 2) No, I don't think God exists; 3) I don't know whether God exists.

There are gnostics and agnostics on either side.

So the extreme left/right position, in lack of a better word, would be "I know, god exists" and "I know, god doesn't exist".

I call myself an agnostic atheist, but I'm tending more to gnostic atheism when it comes to the biblical god.

And what if someone is neither theist nor atheist, but is agnostic?

[The Grand Nudger]

And what if someone is neither theist nor atheist, but is agnostic?

IDK, it would be difficult to establish that such a person exists. An -hardcore- apatheist maybe (though even this isn;t quite the same)? A super neutral neutral. Someone who really can't say with confidence whether they believe or not. They claim no knowledge -about their own beliefs/lack thereof-. Might be folks like that, never met any myself. You?

(seems to me that it might be a case of the ole "not everything we imagine exists", particularly, not every type of person we imagine actually has a representative in reality)