Agnostics

[FatAndFaithless]

I think this discussion has come to the end of its usefulness, unfortunately.

Maybe.  My intent was to demonstrate that a pure agnostic position is valid.  I've made the most compelling arguments I'm capable of, and you guys are free to discard them if you like.  But don't be surprised if, the next time you tell a declared agnostic that he's "really" an agnostic atheist, no matter what he says, you will face disagreement.

I've made it quite clear that I don't care to force labels onto people - that I care more about the concepts.  I'm just finding this conversation more and more circular as time goes on. And if the 'pure agnostic' position is "I don't know what I believe," fine.

[bennyboy]

Maybe.  My intent was to demonstrate that a pure agnostic position is valid.  I've made the most compelling arguments I'm capable of, and you guys are free to discard them if you like.  But don't be surprised if, the next time you tell a declared agnostic that he's "really" an agnostic atheist, no matter what he says, you will face disagreement.

I've made it quite clear that I don't care to force labels onto people - that I care more about the concepts.  I'm just finding this conversation more and more circular as time goes on.  And if the 'pure agnostic' position is "I don't know what I believe," fine.

It's "I don't know what I believe, because there's an ambiguity that cannot be resolved."

[FatAndFaithless]

I've made it quite clear that I don't care to force labels onto people - that I care more about the concepts.  I'm just finding this conversation more and more circular as time goes on.  And if the 'pure agnostic' position is "I don't know what I believe," fine.

It's "I don't know what I believe, because there's an ambiguity that cannot be resolved."

Okay.

[The Grand Nudger]

  I've made the most compelling arguments I'm capable of, and you guys are free to discard them if you like.  But don't be surprised if, the next time you tell a declared agnostic that he's "really" an agnostic atheist, no matter what he says, you will face disagreement.

The argument that you can be undetermined about anything you choose not to define, and can remain undetermined if you are allowed to define and redefine anything if/when previous definitions turn out to be - as you put it - magical monkey farts?  Yeah, I'm gonna discard that, but it's not like you -need- an argument anyway.  

You don't know whether or not gods exist.  Full stop, right?  I take you at your word, consider it validated.  That other part, though..isn't a question of knowledge, but belief.  If someone asks you whether or not you -believe- in gods and your response is "I'm agnostic" mechanically, you're claiming not to know -your own status of belief-, not whether or not a god exists, or you know it either way.  That's probably not what you mean to say...and we can certainly read it and tease out what it is you mean....but we're talking philosophy, compelling arguments, validation, etc. It pays to be precise.

Judging by your responses you -do- seem like an agnostic atheist.  You don't know whether or not a god exists, and you don't believe in any gods (that, you do seem to know).

[bennyboy]

[quote='bennyboy' pid='1351804' dateline='1470242722']
Judging by your responses you -do- seem like an agnostic atheist.  You don't know whether or not a god exists, and you don't believe in any gods (that, you do seem to know).

You can frame it that way if you like. However, meeting YOUR criteria for these words, and defining myself with a word, aren't the same thing. I'm not bothered at all if you want to see me as an agnostic atheist. However, this isn't how I frame my own views. But you are joining this thread very late, and I'll have to ask you to go dig up the various reasons why I claim pure agnostiticsm, and do not identify as agnostic atheist, if you want to discuss my beliefs.

In particular, find the first mentions of conditional belief, and my response to Schrodinger's cat.

Or don't do that. But the way you've just posted looks like a big "reset" that will take us back to the first steps in our magical, mystical journey of words, and I don't have the energy for another 30 pages.

[Jehanne]

Why do some atheists prefer the label agnostic?

'Cause in a lot of cases, I think, they are simply bullied into using it by religious people.

 In my mind, most atheists are agnostics as it is, I have never ever met a "strong" atheist(one who is 100% certain God doesn't exist), or, at least, not one that would maintain he could prove such inexistence. 

So aren't we all, pretty much, agnostics? Aren't agnostics, in turn, atheists? - And notice here, I'm not appending any more words to the term agnostic, such as theist agnostic or atheist agnostic, and so on. I am simply talking about someone who describes themselves purely as an agnostic. Technically, they are surely atheists as well, since the word atheist, does include someone who just doesn't happen to have a belief in a God. In my mind, the two words are very closely related in describing people, at least in the real world.

Thoughts?



Oh, fuck me, why did I have to post this thread? Fuck's sake... Here come the endless semantic debates.

I'm an agnostic atheist; I haven't read all 36 pages of this thread, but Wikipedia has a good article on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[wiploc]

 
So this is may be an example you like better:

• If you are taller than me then I believe you are heavier than me.  But if you're shorter than me then not.
  

In any case, your example is a conditional, but your claim is that you can simultanioiusly believe that something is both true and false.  That claim, even if true, is not supported by your example.

I'll have to go back and look at this again.  I think you are wrong, but it's the second time you've mentioned it, so let me give you a promissory note for now.

Cool.  

"No, of course not."

What if I asked you if you thought Schrodinger's cat was dead.  How would you answer?

"No, of course not."*

* I'm not talking about his actual cat, which, if he had one, would be dead by now.  I'm talking about the cat in the box with the vial of poison which gives the cat a one hour half life; and the cat was alive when it went in, and it has been in there for one hour.

[wiploc]

Well, one could answer "no" to both "Do you believe the cat is dead?" AND "Do you believe the cat is alive?"

That's right.  And I think some here would do that-- "I have no active belief about either, so no and no."

I don't believe the cat is dead, and I don't believe it is alive.  I don't believe either way.  To say, "I have no belief about it," would stretch the point, for I believe the cat is in the box.  

Or try this on for size: in the case of God, most ask, "Do you believe in God?" anticipating a no answer and saying "You're an atheist."
However, if you ask "Do you believe in not-God ?" things look different.  Would you say anyone who lacks the belief in not-God is a theist?

Theists believe gods exist.  
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists don't believe either way.  

Atheists include both the strong and weak types: anyone who isn't a theist is some kind of atheist.  

So, if you want a comparable category for anyone who isn't a strong atheist, we can make one:  NASAs (not a strong atheist) include everyone who isn't a strong atheist.  Therefore, if the question is, "Do you believe gods do not exist?" then anyone who answers "No" is a NASA.  

 I doubt it.  To me, the tendency to default toward one's own position, and away from its inverse, is simple bias.

Having a word for everyone who isn't a theist isn't bias.  And recognizing that weak atheism (not believing either way) is the default position (the position we all start at, and the position we should remain in until and unless we develop a reasonably well founded justification for taking some other position) is not bias.

[wiploc]

Atheism is just the neutral position.

Theists believe gods do exist.
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists don't believe either way. 

Atheism includes both strong and weak atheists, so it isn't just the neutral position.

[wiploc]

"Do you believe the cat is dead?  No, I lack that belief,

A-deadist.

but I don't know the truth"

Agnostic

but also "Do you believe the cat is alive?  No, I lack that belief also,

A-aliveist.  

but I don't know the truth."  

Agnostic.  

So I'm either/both an agnostic dead-ist

An agnostic deadist would believe (without knowing) that the cat is dead.  

or an agnostic alive-ist,

An agnostic aliveist would believe (without knowing) that the cat is alive.  

So you are neither an aliveist nor a deadist.  You are an a-aliveist and an a-deadist.  


ETA:

Ignore this post.  I see that you have already covered this.