Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
February 4, 2015 at 5:25 am (This post was last modified: February 4, 2015 at 5:26 am by bennyboy.)
(February 4, 2015 at 1:04 am)whateverist Wrote: You make that sound pretty special. Do you believe it is impossible for anyone to have knowledge about gods/God? Or is your agnosticism personal, more a matter of fitting your dispositions? I only ask to find out if you think every right thinking person should share your position.
No, I wouldn't expect many to hold the same position.
There are several different reasons why I consider myself agnostic. One is a general distrust of the human capacity to comprehend truth. One is the great variety of God ideas which make a single answer to a general question too difficult. Another is a leaning toward idealism as opposed to physicalism.
I believe that the truth is at a border condition: to be found at whatever is under QM, or inside a black hole, or at the Big Bang. And I think that in those conditions, there are so many ambiguities and paradoxes that words probably cease to really mean anything. In other words, I think in those cases, you might come across something you COULD call God, but whether people would choose to do so would still come down to their semantic preferences.
February 4, 2015 at 1:41 pm (This post was last modified: February 4, 2015 at 2:25 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 1, 2015 at 9:55 pm)YGninja Wrote: No, you are flogging an ungrounded and invalid definition of atheism. Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics don't have any belief, as they claim ignorance.
This is factually incorrect on two counts.
First, not all atheists believe that there is no god; some like myself, have no faith in one, but we don't say "There cannot be any god". That is a different statement. Given your fetishism over definitional argumentation, I'm surprised you haven't gone to the Oxford Dictionaries for their definition of atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." The first clause indicates an active view, the second indicates the passive view, and both views are definitionally correct, no matter your protestations.
Secondly, some agnostics have the belief that the answer to the question "Is there a god?" positively cannot be known. Other agnostics simply haven't weighed the information at hand and decided.
(February 1, 2015 at 9:55 pm)YGninja Wrote: Show me a historical definition supporting your claim.
Here you go. It took all of two minutes on Google to find this ... but then, I wanted to find it.
Quote:A common theme in these definitions is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further or asserting the opposite. In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim).
Definition of Atheism in Late 20th Century Dictionaries:
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.
agnostic: One who, while he does not deny the existence of God, believes there is no proof of a Supreme Being; sometimes confused with atheist.
agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that nothing is known or knowable of the origin or nature of the universe or its creator, except the physical manifestations of phenomena, neither accepting nor rejecting a Deity with supernatural power. 2. Any doctrine which maintains that matters generally accepted as knowledge are problematical, since all are related and trace to a common unknown source.
disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.
Unlike most dictionaries, this one traces the course of how the term "athiesm" has been used over the centuries, leading us to the more modern usage which incorporates anything which simply does not bother believing in any gods.
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictgionary, 1980
atheist: one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God.
agnosticism: The doctrine and philosophical theory that man cannot know God, first truths, or anything beyond material phenomena.
theism: Belief in, or in the existence of, God, a god, or gods.
disbelief: Lack of belief
Oxford English Dictionary
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknowing, unknown, unknowable") One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing. [Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Chapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to 'the Unknown God.' R.H. Hutton in letter 13 May 1881]
disbelieve: 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the reality of. (With simple object or object clause). b. a person making a statement. 2. absol. or intr. Whatley Commonpl. Bk. (1864) It is very evident that the opposite to credulity is scepticism, and that to disbelieve is to believe. 3. intr. with in.: Not to believe in; to have no faith in.
disbeliever: One who disbelieves or refuses belief; an unbeliever.
unbeliever: One who does not believe; spec. one who does not accept a particular religious belief, an infidel.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity 2: godlessness esp. in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness.
agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknown, unknowable, not knowing) one who professes agnosticism; broadly: one who maintains a continuing doubt about the existence or knowability of a god or any ultimates <~... came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the gnostic of church history who professed to know so much — T. H. Huxley>
agnosticism: 1a: the doctrine that the existence or nature of any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable or that any knowledge about matters of ultimate concern is impossible or improbable; specif: the doctrine that God or any first cause is unknown and probably unknowable. b: a doctrine affirming that the existence of a god is possible but denying that there are any sufficient reasons for holding either that he does or does not exist.
disbelieve: vt to hold not to be true or real; reject or withhold belief in. ti to withhold or reject belief.
unbeliever: 1: one that does not believe: an incredulous person : doubter, skeptic. 2: disbeliever, infidel.
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
I have added bolding to make the post easier to read.
Clearly, the various denotations of both "atheist" and "agnostic" have been around for a long time.
(February 3, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Long story short; if you claim to be an agnostic, just grow some fucking balls and admit you know damn well there are no such things as gods. Dithering about with the shit about how you "cannot know" is just a fucking tedious waste of time. You know damn well the truth of the matter. Watching an agnostic try to go on about their hesitations or the "unknown" or what-the-fuck-ever-else they use as their reason for half-assing their belief/non-belief is like watching a gay republican trying to talk about the important of heterosexual Christian family values; it's fucking obnoxious and I already know the truth of the fucking matter. Quit dicking around and just join the rest of us in stating what you already know, dammit.
Belief, lack of belief, and the expressions thereof have nothing to do with courage. Simply because you have an obvious distaste for nuance doesn't mean that those who practice nuanced thinking are afraid to agree with you for any reason ... nor does it mean that they're wrong. Honestly, your screed reminds me of the theists who say, "You know there's a god, you just don't want to admit it" ... "just join the rest of us".
I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe any god-claims I've yet heard, but I don't claim to know that no god(s) exist. It's an intellectually honest stance, for me. You need not like it. That's okay. But "grow some balls"? Really?
February 5, 2015 at 7:19 am (This post was last modified: February 5, 2015 at 7:28 am by Creed of Heresy.)
(February 3, 2015 at 11:18 pm)YGninja Wrote: Lol, the irony is killing me. A picture in place of a rebuttal, the picture telling me that i am the illogical one refusing to play by the rules. Do you ever stand back and take a look at yourself?
Waaaay over your head, huh? That's okay, I've come to expect a total lack of an ability to grasp subtlety from delustionists. Even with that subtlety is only slightly more so than a sledgehammer to the kneecaps...
(February 3, 2015 at 11:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote: In this thread, I've explained in detail why I choose to identify as an agnostic, and not as an agnostic atheist. The word has meaning-- it distinguishes my position from the positions of other people.
And what's this shit about supporting make-believe figures? If I supported those ideas, I would say so.
In my defense, I haven't read through all the thread. Usually I can't hold my attention span long enough to read anything more than three or four of the most recent pages worth of a thread. At most.
Still, if you say you have detailed it and you have a legit reason for your identification, I'll take you at your word, you're a reasonable individual often enough.
(February 4, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(February 1, 2015 at 9:55 pm)YGninja Wrote: No, you are flogging an ungrounded and invalid definition of atheism. Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics don't have any belief, as they claim ignorance.
This is factually incorrect on two counts.
First, not all atheists believe that there is no god; some like myself, have no faith in one, but we don't say "There cannot be any god". That is a different statement. Given your fetishism over definitional argumentation, I'm surprised you haven't gone to the Oxford Dictionaries for their definition of atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." The first clause indicates an active view, the second indicates the passive view, and both views are definitionally correct, no matter your protestations.
Secondly, some agnostics have the belief that the answer to the question "Is there a god?" positively cannot be known. Other agnostics simply haven't weighed the information at hand and decided.
(February 1, 2015 at 9:55 pm)YGninja Wrote: Show me a historical definition supporting your claim.
Here you go. It took all of two minutes on Google to find this ... but then, I wanted to find it.
Quote:A common theme in these definitions is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further or asserting the opposite. In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim).
Definition of Atheism in Late 20th Century Dictionaries:
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.
agnostic: One who, while he does not deny the existence of God, believes there is no proof of a Supreme Being; sometimes confused with atheist.
agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that nothing is known or knowable of the origin or nature of the universe or its creator, except the physical manifestations of phenomena, neither accepting nor rejecting a Deity with supernatural power. 2. Any doctrine which maintains that matters generally accepted as knowledge are problematical, since all are related and trace to a common unknown source.
disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.
Unlike most dictionaries, this one traces the course of how the term "athiesm" has been used over the centuries, leading us to the more modern usage which incorporates anything which simply does not bother believing in any gods.
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictgionary, 1980
atheist: one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God.
agnosticism: The doctrine and philosophical theory that man cannot know God, first truths, or anything beyond material phenomena.
theism: Belief in, or in the existence of, God, a god, or gods.
disbelief: Lack of belief
Oxford English Dictionary
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknowing, unknown, unknowable") One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing. [Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Chapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to 'the Unknown God.' R.H. Hutton in letter 13 May 1881]
disbelieve: 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the reality of. (With simple object or object clause). b. a person making a statement. 2. absol. or intr. Whatley Commonpl. Bk. (1864) It is very evident that the opposite to credulity is scepticism, and that to disbelieve is to believe. 3. intr. with in.: Not to believe in; to have no faith in.
disbeliever: One who disbelieves or refuses belief; an unbeliever.
unbeliever: One who does not believe; spec. one who does not accept a particular religious belief, an infidel.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity 2: godlessness esp. in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness.
agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknown, unknowable, not knowing) one who professes agnosticism; broadly: one who maintains a continuing doubt about the existence or knowability of a god or any ultimates <~... came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the gnostic of church history who professed to know so much — T. H. Huxley>
agnosticism: 1a: the doctrine that the existence or nature of any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable or that any knowledge about matters of ultimate concern is impossible or improbable; specif: the doctrine that God or any first cause is unknown and probably unknowable. b: a doctrine affirming that the existence of a god is possible but denying that there are any sufficient reasons for holding either that he does or does not exist.
disbelieve: vt to hold not to be true or real; reject or withhold belief in. ti to withhold or reject belief.
unbeliever: 1: one that does not believe: an incredulous person : doubter, skeptic. 2: disbeliever, infidel.
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
I have added bolding to make the post easier to read.
Clearly, the various denotations of both "atheist" and "agnostic" have been around for a long time.
I'm calling it now; he's going to reject all of this, or he's going to ignore it and refuse to concede he's wrong.
Any takers? The payout is 20 to 0.
Quote:
(February 3, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Long story short; if you claim to be an agnostic, just grow some fucking balls and admit you know damn well there are no such things as gods. Dithering about with the shit about how you "cannot know" is just a fucking tedious waste of time. You know damn well the truth of the matter. Watching an agnostic try to go on about their hesitations or the "unknown" or what-the-fuck-ever-else they use as their reason for half-assing their belief/non-belief is like watching a gay republican trying to talk about the important of heterosexual Christian family values; it's fucking obnoxious and I already know the truth of the fucking matter. Quit dicking around and just join the rest of us in stating what you already know, dammit.
Belief, lack of belief, and the expressions thereof have nothing to do with courage. Simply because you have an obvious distaste for nuance doesn't mean that those who practice nuanced thinking are afraid to agree with you for any reason ... nor does it mean that they're wrong. Honestly, your screed reminds me of the theists who say, "You know there's a god, you just don't want to admit it" ... "just join the rest of us".
I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe any god-claims I've yet heard, but I don't claim to know that no god(s) exist. It's an intellectually honest stance, for me. You need not like it. That's okay. But "grow some balls"? Really?
It's also an intellectually honest stance to claim to know no gods exist, just as it is intellectually honest to say no unicorns exist.
Both are entities of nothing more than stories. No evidence has ever been demonstrated. There is no need to assume a god may exist, because nothing ever requires one.
You say you are being "intellectually honest." I say "you are keeping an open mind to the impossible." The existence of a unicorn is just as impossible as the existence of a god. I know no god exists as surely as I know that gravity does; the evidence has shown its favors.
(February 5, 2015 at 7:19 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: You say you are being "intellectually honest." I say "you are keeping an open mind to the impossible." The existence of a unicorn is just as impossible as the existence of a god.
Impossible or improbable? These are not the same thing.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
February 5, 2015 at 5:49 pm (This post was last modified: February 5, 2015 at 6:25 pm by Creed of Heresy.)
(February 5, 2015 at 9:16 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote:
(February 5, 2015 at 7:19 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: You say you are being "intellectually honest." I say "you are keeping an open mind to the impossible." The existence of a unicorn is just as impossible as the existence of a god.
Impossible or improbable? These are not the same thing.
Now there's the million-dollar question, isn't it?
On the one hand, there might be a possibility. On the other, if there even is such a possibility, then the chances would be so innumerably astronomically remote, would it even be worth actually considering as a possibility? Or would those chances be so high that they actually step into the realms of impossibility?
I know, this is the same argument delusionists use to argue against the idea of the chaos of random chance resulting in the universe. Difference is, it nevertheless still happened. But what if the odds are even more remote, by an order of many magnitudes, for something else? And in that same breath, if the result is what it is, does that actually mean the odds are 1 in 1?
My answer to all those questions, inevitably, is "I don't know." Which, bizarrely and contradictorily enough, is actually an agnostic stance.
That said...a unicorn would have to exist on a planescape, as all other equines do. They would also have to have a sizable, sustainable population count. We would therefore have discovered them by now, don't you think? Do dragons exist? Do leprechauns? Is there the possibility they do? Is there the possibility of magic?
I say no. Why? Because the possibility of their existence is 0. Why? Because we've had plenty of time to actually discover these things. We have not. Ergo, they are not real. They are not possible, by virtue of their non-existence.
If a hypothesis is disproven, demonstrated as false, do we not then say that the truth of that hypothesis is not possible?
Quote:Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1] Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty).[2][3] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. A simple example is the toss of a fair coin. Since the two outcomes are equally probable, the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails", so the probability is 1/2 (or 50%) chance of either "heads" or "tails".
Quote:Possibility is the condition or fact of being possible. The Latin origins of the word hint at ability. Possibility also refers to something that "could happen", that is not precluded by the facts, but usually not probable. Impossible denotes that something cannot happen or be done.
I hope that makes my question clearer.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Saying that something is impossible is easy. Demonstrating that, not so easy. Remember, you cannot use the absence of evidence to support impossibility, which is why you were asked about improbability, which is, I think, much more apt.
My mind is open to whatever has evidence supporting it, in direct proportion to the quality and quantity of said evidence. If that leads me to the improbable, so be it. I don't like claiming knowledge I don't actually possess, and that's not a matter of fear, but honesty.
February 5, 2015 at 9:59 pm (This post was last modified: February 5, 2015 at 10:01 pm by AFTT47.)
I don't think the unicorn is a good analogy for God. If we're looking for a unicorn here on Earth, there are only so many places where it could possibly be. The chances of an animal that size existing on this planet without a single shred of evidence is essentially zero. The situation with God is different. It could be entirely outside the universe, in a region between multiple universes. There is no reason to believe there is such a critter but we're talking about a realm we know nothing about. Not only is it impossible to rule out but I don't see how anyone could begin to predict odds.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
February 5, 2015 at 10:20 pm (This post was last modified: February 5, 2015 at 10:20 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 5, 2015 at 9:59 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't think the unicorn is a good analogy for God. If we're looking for a unicorn here on Earth, there are only so many places where it could possibly be. The chances of an animal that size existing on this planet without a single shred of evidence is essentially zero. The situation with God is different. It could be entirely outside the universe, in a region between multiple universes. There is no reason to believe there is such a critter but we're talking about a realm we know nothing about. Not only is it impossible to rule out but I don't see how anyone could begin to predict odds.
Nuh, uh. Unicorns are magical, and they can drink fairy dust to travel into outer space, at least on full moons and Tuesdays.
