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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:15 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
#11
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 14, 2020 at 5:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Let's take the motto "I believe in science" for example, which is, for most skeptics, a euphemism for "I don't believe in anything any religion claims".

One thing to keep in mind is that the word "believe" in English has two distinct meanings. 

One meaning is: "I believe the world is round" which is assent to the truth of a proposition. I hold the proposition to be true. 

The other meaning is "I believe in equal rights for women," which is commitment to a value. Obviously we don't have equal rights for women now, so we don't believe in them the way we believe the world is round. 

I think that a lot of religious belief is this second type. People say "I believe in Jesus" (or something similar) as a commitment to a value. Jesus represents values for them, and they want to be committed to those values. 

The trouble is when people conflate the two. Someone may feel forced to believe in the first way (Jesus really did those things) when he believes in the second way (I like what Jesus said). 

Likewise, people are reasonable to say that the results from the scientific method are (relatively) believable in the first way. We assent to the truth of propositions which are arrived at through the scientific method.

But here too, people may believe in science as a commitment to its values, and in this case it becomes something more like ideology. Those things science shows are to be valued and things it can't show are not to be valued. This ends up doing more than the scientific method really shows. In this case, it's true that some people aren't thinking about the words sufficiently.
Reply
#12
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
@Klorophyll Atheist/Agnostic does not equal science.

As soon as you can provide a concrete demonstration that god(s) exist and is/are more than just an abstraction invented by the minds of humans, then I'll consider the existence of said god(s) as more than just a concept.

Edit: And you should probably read up on "uncertainty principle".
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#13
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 14, 2020 at 7:52 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I agree with this. Questions about God are metaphysics, and therefore not science by definition. But that doesn't lead me to agree with the sentence you wrote prior:

Quote:The only honest position is actually to take one of the two extremes. 

It is perfectly honest for many people to say that they don't know, that they're still working on it. Honesty doesn't require us to pick one team and oppose the other one.

What are they working at exactly ? There cannot possibly be an empirical evidence about such a being, he either already revealed himself in one of the established religion or he simply doesn't exist, at least not with the interesting attributes (the three-Omni properties, etc.)

(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Why? Nobody "believes in science". Science is a method not a faith. Science is the sole reason you can post this crap right here, right now. Want to reject the scientific method? Then you had better get of the internet, because that is a product of the science you apparently hate.

I see you're starting to build a strawman buddy. I hate confusing science with religion.

(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: That has fuck all to do with skeptics. It is rather simple. Wanna make a claim? Go right ahead and provide your evidence. And you have failed in that task. Got evidence for whichever deity of your choice? Sure. Every skeptic and atheist would accept such evidence for whichever fucked up deity.

The problem is that none has been provided for any of the thousands of claimed deities.

Want me to believe in your particular flavour of deity? No problem. Provide evidence that it is real. And you cannot. This perpetual lack of evidence is not my problem. It is yours.

The thread is not about proving god again, it's about taking the most honest position. Suspending judgement is not honest when it comes to the claim of an all-powerful all knowing just deity. The latter either revealed itself or doesn't exist. There is not midpoint here.

(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Not an atheists problem. It is the theist issue to demonstrate their claim of whichever claim they happen to make. Have you expended that effort disproving the god of Islam, Hindhuism, Sikhism Spiritualism, and so on through the countless thousands of claimed deities? Of course you haven't. Therefore we are forced to conclude that your deity is merely the same as Quetzalcaotl. Just another caliamed deity in a cornucopia of thousands of claimed deities, not one of which has any evidence.

Most of these claimed deities are mutually exclusive, once you have decisive evidence for one, you don't need to look up the rest. All the burden of disproving is on people who don't believe in any deity. This is an important nuance you should take some time to think about.

(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 5:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: We invented mathematics
Nope. That's false.

Go back to school, sir. The first building blocks of any domain in mathematics are axioms we picked. All the theorems, lemmas and fantastic insights are logical deductions we do in our heads.

(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 5:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: When our mathematics became good enough we were finally able to have a better intuition of the universe.
False.

Riight, ignorant. Apparently, the rule of three was enough for Einstein to formalise general relatvity.
Reply
#14
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 7:52 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I agree with this. Questions about God are metaphysics, and therefore not science by definition. But that doesn't lead me to agree with the sentence you wrote prior:


It is perfectly honest for many people to say that they don't know, that they're still working on it. Honesty doesn't require us to pick one team and oppose the other one.

What are they working at exactly ?
Total BS.

(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote: There cannot possibly be an empirical evidence about such a being, he either already revealed himself in one of the established religion or he simply doesn't exist, at least not with the interesting attributes (the three-Omni properties, etc.)
Gawd gets a free pass? From the normal evidential process?

(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote: [quote='Abaddon_ire' pid='1957251' dateline='1581727016']
Why? Nobody "believes in science". Science is a method not a faith. Science is the sole reason you can post this crap right here, right now. Want to reject the scientific method? Then you had better get of the internet, because that is a product of the science you apparently hate.

I see you're starting to build a strawman buddy. I hate confusing science with religion.
Consider ceasing to do it.

(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: That has fuck all to do with skeptics. It is rather simple. Wanna make a claim? Go right ahead and provide your evidence. And you have failed in that task. Got evidence for whichever deity of your choice? Sure. Every skeptic and atheist would accept such evidence for whichever fucked up deity.

The problem is that none has been provided for any of the thousands of claimed deities.

Want me to believe in your particular flavour of deity? No problem. Provide evidence that it is real. And you cannot. This perpetual lack of evidence is not my problem. It is yours.

The thread is not about proving god again,
"Again"? Really? When has any deity been proven?

(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote: it's about taking the most honest position. Suspending judgement is not honest when it comes to the claim of an all-powerful all knowing just deity. The latter either revealed itself or doesn't exist. There is not midpoint here.
false dichotomy.

(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Not an atheists problem. It is the theist issue to demonstrate their claim of whichever claim they happen to make. Have you expended that effort disproving the god of Islam, Hindhuism, Sikhism Spiritualism, and so on through the countless thousands of claimed deities? Of course you haven't. Therefore we are forced to conclude that your deity is merely the same as Quetzalcaotl. Just another caliamed deity in a cornucopia of thousands of claimed deities, not one of which has any evidence.

Most of these claimed deities are mutually exclusive, once you have decisive evidence for one, you don't need to look up the rest. All the burden of disproving is on people who don't believe in any deity. This is an important nuance you should take some time to think about.
And you stupidly assume there exists a burden of disproof. That is false.

If you want to claim some deity, go right ahead. Feel free. But you will then have to provide evidence for such a claim. As an atheist, I believe in no god/s. I will quite happily believe in the deity that rocks up with EVIDENCE. Unitl then, no.


(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Nope. That's false.

Go back to school, sir. The first building blocks of any domain in mathematics are axioms we picked. All the theorems, lemmas and fantastic insights are logical deductions we do in our heads.
Still false.

(February 15, 2020 at 9:15 am)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 14, 2020 at 8:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: False.

Riight, ignorant. Apparently, the rule of three was enough for Einstein to formalise general relatvity.

Also false. I have no idea which planet you come from, but it isn't this one
Reply
#15
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 15, 2020 at 9:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: false dichotomy.

And you stupidly assume there exists a burden of disproof. That is false.

Still false.

Also false.

I see you're using the word "false" a lot without saying why. If you're too lazy to write good answers, don't answer.
Reply
#16
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 15, 2020 at 9:49 am)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 15, 2020 at 9:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: false dichotomy.

And you stupidly assume there exists a burden of disproof. That is false.

Still false.

Also false.

I see you're using the word "false" a lot without saying why. If you're too lazy to write good answers, don't answer.

I see you are unable to work out why "false" is the appropriate term. It is not my responsibility to educate you about old, worn out claims.
Reply
#17
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
Was this thread supposed to be about agnosticism? Most of the time, when a person tells you that they don't know something...they don't.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#18
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 14, 2020 at 8:14 pm)Agnostico Wrote: A person says he thinks there is a 50% chance of a god. There is nothing dishonest about that. 

1. How did you come up with the odds being 50%? Just because a god either exists, for doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it is a 50/50 proposition.

2. That's not agnosticism. Agnosticism is having the position that the existence of gods is unknown (currently), and possibly unknowable.

Quote:The person is not a theist or an atheist, he's agnostic. The assertion that one must choose between two options is a black and white fallacy

Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Gnosticism/agnosticism concerns what one claims to know, theism/atheism concerns what one believes/disbelieves.

It is not possible to not be a theist or not atheist. Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true. Belief is binary mental state. If one believes a god exists, they are a theist. If one is not convinced that a god exists, they are an atheist.

With regards to the existence of gods, either one accepts the proposition that at least one god exists, which would make one a theist (the belief in a god). Or they do not accept that proposition as being true, which would make them an atheist (without belief in a god). If one says they are not convinced that a god exists, they are an atheist; the "A" prefix means "without" , "theism' means "belief in gods". Atheism means without belief in gods.

There is no requirement with theism or atheism, that one be absolutely certain that a god exists, or does not exist.

Agnostic-atheist is a valid position, as is agnostic-theism.

There is no black and white fallacy.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#19
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
There should be no need to break it down like this, but once again there's dumbassery afoot.

The prefix 'a' means "without".  Thus, atheism means without theism.  Atheists live without theism for many reasons.  It's not a creed on it's own.  It's the avoidance of a creed.

Agnostic means without knowledge.  The claim in the thread title is ridiculous.  Religions require faith because they can't offer certainty.  In the absence of verifiable knowledge, for or against, agnosticism is the only honest position.
Reply
#20
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
Wrong!
The Copperfield is a pretty dishonest position. Maybe not the most, but certainly more dishonest than Agnosticism.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Agnosticism LinuxGal 5 828 January 2, 2023 at 8:29 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Atheism, theism, agnosticism, gnosticism, ignosticism Simon Moon 25 1968 October 29, 2022 at 4:49 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Two Undeniable Truths Why Theism is True and Atheism and Agnosticism are Not True HiYou 49 12001 July 21, 2015 at 6:59 am
Last Post: KUSA
  Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism Dystopia 92 9055 March 3, 2015 at 11:48 am
Last Post: robvalue
  In need of a more humbleness. Why condemning the Theistic position makes no sense. Mystic 141 23680 September 22, 2014 at 7:59 am
Last Post: Chas
  Question about atheism related with gnosticism and agnosticism Dystopia 4 2070 July 10, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Implications of the Atheistic Position FallentoReason 33 11209 September 2, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Last Post: Oldandeasilyconfused
  Atheism vs. Agnosticism EscapingDelusion 9 5375 August 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Last Post: pocaracas
  Both groups feel the other side is dishonest? Mystic 27 10712 July 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Why Agnosticism? diffidus 69 26749 July 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)