What is in a label?

[Darwinian]

No. Nothing exists! That's the only explaination of the Cosmos that makes any sense.

[puglover]

No. Nothing exists! That's the only explaination of the Cosmos that makes any sense.

in other news.. Western Australia (AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!!) and some other place found some light cosmo bang thing that creates black holes far far away from here... BOOM. excuse my description and lack of vocab. i was talking about this today to a social worker person i know who is Catholic.. they said that there was not going to be one that would suck the earth into it.. and then i asked them if they thought that humans can become extinct and she yes. *shrugs*

[leo-rcc]

i was talking about this today to a social worker person i know who is Catholic.. they said that there was not going to be one that would suck the earth into it.. and then i asked them if they thought that humans can become extinct and she yes. *shrugs*

The odds of the Earth being sucked into a black hole is indeed negligibly small. The odds of being struck by a meteor is much more likely as that has happened before and happens on a smaller scale very regularly and will happen again.

As for humans becoming extinct, that is certainly possible, 99% of all life forms on Earth has gone extinct, there is no reason to presume it can't happen to humans as well.

[Darwinian]

Humans must one day become extinct, either because they all simply die out or evolution changes them into something that can no longer be considered as human.

I once saw an episode of Dr. Who where they travelled to the end of the universe as we know it and the planet they were on was full of perfectly ordinary looking humans. This is of course absolute nonsense.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

---

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

[CoxRox]

Hi Puglover,

Don't worry too much about the 'atheist/agnostic' label problem. Here's what Betrand Russell had to say:

''Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.''

http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html

You seem to be in good company.

[Edwardo Piet]

Agnostic and atheist are not mutally exclusive. There is a whole spectrum of agnosticism. For example, On Dawkins' spectrum of Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP) I am a 6 - a De Facto atheist. I am about as agnostic about God as I am about the FSM.

I am a 6 but I am close to 7. But not 7.

7 is believing you 100% KNOW there is NO God. Just as one is believing that you 100% KNOW there IS a God.

There is a huge scale of agnosticism. Agnosticism does not mean straight in the middle. Many people have thought that. It doesn't mean that.

And TAP is not to be confused with PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle). Which is not believing that God is a 50/50 thing. It is actually believing you can not even make probability judgements on the matter of God. And that it will stay that way forever. We will never have any idea whether God exists or not or how probable it is - that's what PAP Is.

For TAP - as I have said - there is a whole scale of probability of God. And I am a 6.

You can be agnostic and an atheist. And agnostic and a believer. They are not mutually exclusive - in the TAP Case at least. Right?
evf

[Kyuuketsuki]

Agnostic and atheist are not mutally exclusive. There is a whole spectrum of agnosticism. For example, On Dawkins' spectrum of Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP) I am a 6 - a De Facto atheist. I am about as agnostic about God as I am about the FSM.

Using Dawkins scale yeah, I would be a 6 but I don't really accept Dawkin's rationale on this one, I think it' is a simple binary concept ... you either believe there is a god (or gods) or you don't. You (not you specifically) can philosophise about it all you like but ultimately it's a black & whiter issue and, to be brutally honest, I see all the classification in between as largely bending over backwards not to offend (particularly theist) sensibilities indeed much the same as I see NOMA.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

Agnostic and atheist are not mutally exclusive. There is a whole spectrum of agnosticism. For example, On Dawkins' spectrum of Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP) I am a 6 - a De Facto atheist. I am about as agnostic about God as I am about the FSM.

Using Dawkins scale yeah, I would be a 6 but I don't really accept Dawkin's rationale on this one, I think it' is a simple binary concept ... you either believe there is a god (or gods) or you don't. You (not you specifically) can philosophise about it all you like but ultimately it's a black & whiter issue and, to be brutally honest, I see all the classification in between as largely bending over backwards not to offend (particularly theist) sensibilities indeed much the same as I see NOMA.

Kyu

I agree wth Kyu on this. I think I've mentioned the same on this forum before that I don't like that Dawkins scale for that very same reason.

[Purple Rabbit]

CoxRox - 01-02-2009 - 05:02 PM -- Purple Rabbit, I'd be interested in your views on Kyu's post:http://atheistforums.org/thread-526-post-7929.html#pid7929

Why is the label important at all? My experience is that one can have very long discussions on fora about the exact and precise meaning of words like weak and strong atheism, principled agnosticism and practical agnosticism, non-theism and anti-theism. Many times ending up in public attempts of mind reading like: "if you say that you are an atheist you deny the existence of my god and all moral" or "if you say you're an agnostic, you must have great doubts about atheists". But when I say forget the label, belief in god(s) is absent in me, all strung up argument evaporates.

Personally I tend to side with Sam Harris that having a label for not believing is like defining some subculture, making it into a flea of theism. Absence of believe is not a subculture, worldview or movement but resides in all people, anyone should be able to relate to that. Do you believe in astrology, racism, abductions by aliens, Atlantis, whichcraft, that there was a JFK conspiracy? We have no need for labels like non-astrologers, non-racists, non-alien-abductance-believers, non-whichcraft-followers, non-philatelists. Atheism is not a worldview or a movement. If you wanna call yourself an agnostic, it's fine by me, but what you really wanna tell me seems in most cases to be the fact that you haven't sufficient belief in god(s). That seems a lot like someone who calls himself an atheist because he/she hasn't sufficient belief in god(s).