Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[EgoDeath]

---

Hey there,

Non religious people tend to overly use words without thinking about them, just like many religious people do, only in a much more dishonest manner.

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". The latter declaration already contains a mistake since nobody exhausted all the religious claims and ensured that they're fake. Let's remember that atheists are perfectly fine with ruling out entire religions with guesswork and false stereotypes.

Fancy words like science, reason, etc. refer to a very simple idea : we struggle very hard to figure out how things work around us. We invented mathematics and fancy abstract concepts for the sole purpose of getting our thoughts straight. When our mathematics became good enough we were finally able to have a better intuition of the universe. What should be kept in mind here is that we didn't create anything, we adapted to an a priori existence, all our attempts in science are a posteriori explanations that we try to fit to what we see around us. It's easy to imagine a very clever alien figuring out our entire "glories" of science in a couple of hours, then coming with a working theory of everything in the next, but this very alien is clever enough not to mess with fundamentally different questions like a meaning of his existence , or disregard revelation without looking at it hard enough.

So the purpose of science is attempts to figure out a posteriori how stuff works. Religion is about wondering why there is an a priori to discover in the first place. These are two entirely distinct compartments. Huge advancements in one don't negate the importance of the other.

That's why people repeating the aforementioned motto are fundamentally dishonest, they equivocate and mix these two very different aspects of reality.

It's not hard to make a case that we will never access any kind of ultimate reality, we already know that we cannot ever predict a physical quanity of a particle with certainty [Uncertainty principle]. Yeah : predicting certainly anything about one particle anywhere in the universe is already inaccessible to us forever.

And let's not forget that it took us 1700+ years to prove pi is irrational. And some still say : I'm open minded about discovering God in the future .

The only honest position is actually to take one of the two extremes. Saying that you're open to science discovering god is a grave misunderstanding of both science and religion.

---

I used a hide tag on your post because it's a big wall of text to quote.

But how is admitting that you do not know if god exists dishonest?

If I tell you that there's a certain amount of money in my pocket, and do not tell you an amount, wouldn't it be honest of you to say that you do not know how much money is in my pocket? In fact, wouldn't the most honest thing of all be to admit that you don't know if I even have any money in my pocket? I mean, certainly you wouldn't assume that I'm lying, but in all reality, isn't the most honest thing to admit that you don't even know if I'm carrying any money?

I would say so.

[Belacqua]

But, if this scrutinizing body or framework is propped up on premises that can’t be demonstrated, in what meaningful way are those revelations that are approved or accepted by that body different from personal revelations that have not been approved or accepted by it?

I think any worldview consists of a web of things we hold to be true, and some of those things can be demonstrated more reliably than others. 

Science rests (or is "propped up by") the metaphysical proposition that what our senses tell us corresponds in some way with a "real" world. I accept that and you accept that, but I don't think it can be proven without just begging the question. Things in science are tentatively confirmed by correlating them to other things that are tentatively confirmed. If they all work together and the planes don't fall out of the sky, then we assume we're getting it right. 

Sometimes, though, a web of things that seem well-demonstrated comes crashing down. The Ptolemaic view of the solar system seemed to be confirmed any time a navigator made it safely to port by using the stars, or an astronomer predicted an eclipse. It all worked together until it didn't. 

A religious framework will use different criteria, by definition. It will include different types of input than science does, including revelations which have previously been accepted. But once it's been up and running for a thousand years or so, and has been vigorously debated, then its internal consistency will be fairly clear about what new input can be accepted. So those of us who aren't committed to the system will remain unpersuaded, but that doesn't mean that any new "revelation" that comes along will be added to the mix. 

So I guess the simple answer would be: revelations accepted by an elaborate system are different from personal whims, because they are in keeping with the other conclusions mutually supported by all the different elements already in the system's web. You and I may think that too many of its tenets remain undemonstrated, but other people (who are just as smart and sincere as I am) find it persuasive.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But, if this scrutinizing body or framework is propped up on premises that can’t be demonstrated, in what meaningful way are those revelations that are approved or accepted by that body different from personal revelations that have not been approved or accepted by it?

I think any worldview consists of a web of things we hold to be true, and some of those things can be demonstrated more reliably than others. 

Science rests (or is "propped up by") the metaphysical proposition that what our senses tell us corresponds in some way with a "real" world. I accept that and you accept that, but I don't think it can be proven without just begging the question. Things in science are tentatively confirmed by correlating them to other things that are tentatively confirmed. If they all work together and the planes don't fall out of the sky, then we assume we're getting it right. 

Sometimes, though, a web of things that seem well-demonstrated comes crashing down. The Ptolemaic view of the solar system seemed to be confirmed any time a navigator made it safely to port by using the stars, or an astronomer predicted an eclipse. It all worked together until it didn't. 

A religious framework will use different criteria, by definition. It will include different types of input than science does, including revelations which have previously been accepted. But once it's been up and running for a thousand years or so, and has been vigorously debated, then its internal consistency will be fairly clear about what new input can be accepted. So those of us who aren't committed to the system will remain unpersuaded, but that doesn't mean that any new "revelation" that comes along will be added to the mix. 

So I guess the simple answer would be: revelations accepted by an elaborate system are different from personal whims, because they are in keeping with the other conclusions mutually supported by all the different elements already in the system's web. You and I may think that too many of its tenets remain undemonstrated, but other people (who are just as smart and sincere as I am) find it persuasive.

I hope I'm not misreading you, but you describe scientific conclusions as 'tentative', as if that's some sort of a criticism.  It is the nature  of science to be tentative and provisional - this is part of the self-correcting nature of science.

You also seem to be saying that it is a weakness of science to be internally consistent, but a strength for a religious worldview to be so.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I think any worldview consists of a web of things we hold to be true, and some of those things can be demonstrated more reliably than others. 

Science rests (or is "propped up by") the metaphysical proposition that what our senses tell us corresponds in some way with a "real" world. I accept that and you accept that, but I don't think it can be proven without just begging the question. Things in science are tentatively confirmed by correlating them to other things that are tentatively confirmed. If they all work together and the planes don't fall out of the sky, then we assume we're getting it right. 

Sometimes, though, a web of things that seem well-demonstrated comes crashing down. The Ptolemaic view of the solar system seemed to be confirmed any time a navigator made it safely to port by using the stars, or an astronomer predicted an eclipse. It all worked together until it didn't. 

A religious framework will use different criteria, by definition. It will include different types of input than science does, including revelations which have previously been accepted. But once it's been up and running for a thousand years or so, and has been vigorously debated, then its internal consistency will be fairly clear about what new input can be accepted. So those of us who aren't committed to the system will remain unpersuaded, but that doesn't mean that any new "revelation" that comes along will be added to the mix. 

So I guess the simple answer would be: revelations accepted by an elaborate system are different from personal whims, because they are in keeping with the other conclusions mutually supported by all the different elements already in the system's web. You and I may think that too many of its tenets remain undemonstrated, but other people (who are just as smart and sincere as I am) find it persuasive.

I hope I'm not misreading you, but you describe scientific conclusions as 'tentative', as if that's some sort of a criticism.  It is the nature  of science to be tentative and provisional - this is part of the self-correcting nature of science.

You also seem to be saying that it is a weakness of science to be internally consistent, but a strength for a religious worldview to be so.

Boru

I am not saying it is bad for scientific findings to be tentative. 

I am not saying it is a weakness for science to be internally consistent. I am saying the opposite.

Thank you for asking, rather than jumping to conclusions.

[vulcanlogician]

[81:8/81:9] And when the girl [who was] buried alive is asked. For what sin she was killed

Burying girls alive was the traditional way of conducting honor killings back then, it's something well-known Islam forbade this stuff in its earliest days.

Huh? How does this verse expressly forbid the murder of rape victims by their fathers? It might metaphorically do so, but I don't see the metaphor. And (apparently) some practitioners of Islam don't see the metaphor either because they brashly and without apology strangle their daughters to death for the crime of having been raped. Why don't you give a full and thoughtful analysis of why honor killings persist in areas of the world dominated by Islam? If they are so wrong, and Islam is so right, why are YOU GUYS the ones doing all the honor killings?

[The Architect Of Fate]

[81:8/81:9] And when the girl [who was] buried alive is asked. For what sin she was killed

Burying girls alive was the traditional way of conducting honor killings back then, it's something well-known Islam forbade this stuff in its earliest days.

Huh? How does this verse expressly forbid the murder of rape victims by their fathers? It might metaphorically do so, but I don't see the metaphor. And (apparently) some practitioners of Islam don't see the metaphor either because they brashly and without apology strangle their daughters to death for the crime of having been raped. Why don't you give a full and thoughtful analysis of why honor killings persist in areas of the world dominated by Islam? If they are so wrong, and Islam is so right, why are YOU GUYS the ones doing all the honor killings?

Why does a ton of awful shit persist in areas of the world dominated by Islam

[Mister Agenda]

What is the purpose of this thought experiment? I don't see how it has anything to do with the subject.

Yesterday I gave you three traditional definitions of God. Each of them was arrived at by looking at the world in front of us and using reason to think about things. 

If you don't agree with that reasonings' conclusions that's fine; a lot of people don't agree with it. But pretending there's some sort of secret box thing going on is not relevant.

I'll take that as a NO, you can't define what is in the box.
Do you know why you can't define it ?

Because a definition is a description of what something is, what it does, how it behaves, a list of properties or attributes, etc.

And you can't define something without first knowing what it is.

Your definitions of a god are hollow and empty and meaningless because you can't give a definition until you demonstrate that the the thing you are defining actually exists in the first place.

You can't define an unknown.
A god is an unknown value.

I contend the value is zero until such a time anyone can demonstrate that it's value is more than nothing.

Certainly we can define imaginary things. If I talk about unicorns, we can agree on the basics of 'mammal with four legs and a head with one horn'. We can't point to a concrete and say that's a unicorn so we can differ on a lot of details, like whether a one-horned rhino counts as a unicorn; but we know a marmot or Triceratops doesn't. The problem with defining imaginary entities isn't that they can't be defined, it's that there isn't an existent referent to lock the definition down, so there are multiple versions. The unicorn I visualize may have a lot in common with yours, but there will be significant differences as well, such as mine having cloven hooves and yours having hooves like a horse's. And if a writer decides for their work of fiction that unicorns have rainbow-colored breath that stuns their victims; they are free to do so, because they're referring to their own imaginations.

Gods are more fluid conceptually than unicorns; and Bel's idea of a capital-g God seems to differ greatly from what most Evangelicals and Catholics have in mind when they think of God; but God can be defined, at least for the purposes of argument. Just like Superman can, and with many of the same difficulties (Superman's powers and power levels depend a lot on who is writing him at the time).

---

That's absolutely true. I thank God there is a day of judgement. I thank God that one day everyone will account for every sentence that came out of his mouth, especially any dismissal of good arguments by babble and noise. I thank God my efforts won't go in vain because these children decided it's time to shout.

It's understandable why people like Hawking proudly declare that "there is no god" and gladly woke up in the morning full of hope, even desire to spread their stupid ideas about religions, Hawking had a fulfilling academic life that somehow silenced his crying inherent tendency to belief, he also had the most stupid opinion about god ever, and this discrepancy is amazing : world class scientists are prepared to babble nonsensical shit when it comes to god and theology. They replace this innate sense towards awe/belief with their advocacy for its opposite, combined with some social status and a sense of "not needing god", it's a simple psychological trick that sadly works. But when it comes to some of these fools here, they obviously can't follow a train of thought without barking, or handle discussing historical figures completely outside of their local legal system, if there is any, yet face any theist with this mocking attitude, like they're in some kind of cleverness challenge or something. That's the kind of attitude that makes a human being deserve hell.

I recall when no one will even admit there are interesting definitions of God and uninteresting ones, they hate the fact that thinking unbiasedly about definitions leads to forced results like God absolutely not existing or having already revealed himself. For them, all theology is red herring, simply because their christianity turned out to be red herring, and they see no problem in generalizing their childhood trauma to all religions.

The first ten years I lived in Japan I went everywhere by bicycle, because the city is compact and a good size. The city I'm in, however, is notorious for aggressive and inconsiderate drivers, and eventually I had to give up. It's dangerous, but more disturbing for my peace of mind was the fact that I was getting really angry at people. 

It seemed to me that it was easy to identify people who, in my personal judgment, deserved to be scolded. But once I picked out who I could get angry at I was in danger of going overboard. All the anger I had pent up about other things found an outlet in the inconsiderate drivers. 

My guess is that something similar is going on here. If people want to demonstrate the falseness of religion or persuade people to change their minds, they wouldn't type what they do. If they are in any way trying to make the world a better place, they would go about things differently. It seems more likely that they choose you and other people with differing metaphysical beliefs as targets for their negative feelings, just because they want targets. 

Part of the problem is the whole New Atheist thing. Dawkins and Hitchens and those guys began with the a priori belief that theology must be so stupid that you don't have to know anything about it to criticize it. They were not bothered by the fact that their books contain numerous factual errors, and neither were their fans. We're well into the second generation of such thinking by now. 

So there's a disconnect between people who want to exchange reasons and talk about things, and people who feel it's fine just to vent.

I don't care if people believe in gods or not. I care if they put forth an effort to be rational. The purpose of this site is not to persuade theists to be atheists. The purpose of this site is not to demonstrate the falseness of religion.

And clearly your purpose is not to demonstrate the truth of religion or to persuade atheists to become theists or you wouldn't have typed this post, you hypocrite. If you were trying in any way to make the world a better place, you would go about things differently.

[Mister Agenda]

But most of us have heard all the arguments, and have addressed them. 

I've heard the same mistakes from atheists many times, also. When someone new makes the same mistake, do I have justification to be rude to him?

You're human, if it's something that's been refuted a thousand times, you're allowed to express your frustration.

[LadyForCamus]

It’s not the fallacious arguments that are frustrating; it’s their arrogance, and the condescending tone many of them use to present them.

[Rahn127]

I'll take that as a NO, you can't define what is in the box.
Do you know why you can't define it ?

Because a definition is a description of what something is, what it does, how it behaves, a list of properties or attributes, etc.

And you can't define something without first knowing what it is.

Your definitions of a god are hollow and empty and meaningless because you can't give a definition until you demonstrate that the the thing you are defining actually exists in the first place.

You can't define an unknown.
A god is an unknown value.

I contend the value is zero until such a time anyone can demonstrate that it's value is more than nothing.

Certainly we can define imaginary things. If I talk about unicorns, we can agree on the basics of 'mammal with four legs and a head with one horn'. We can't point to a concrete and say that's a unicorn so we can differ on a lot of details, like whether a one-horned rhino counts as a unicorn; but we know a marmot or Triceratops doesn't. The problem with defining imaginary entities isn't that they can't be defined, it's that there isn't an existent referent to lock the definition down, so there are multiple versions. The unicorn I visualize may have a lot in common with yours, but there will be significant differences as well, such as mine having cloven hooves and yours having hooves like a horse's. And if a writer decides for their work of fiction that unicorns have rainbow-colored breath that stuns their victims; they are free to do so, because they're referring to their own imaginations.

Gods are more fluid conceptually than unicorns; and Bel's idea of a capital-g God seems to differ greatly from what most Evangelicals and Catholics have in mind when they think of God; but God can be defined, at least for the purposes of argument. Just like Superman can, and with many of the same difficulties (Superman's powers and power levels depend a lot on who is writing him at the time).

We can define imaginary things in terms of things that are real and exist.
Unicorns are horses (those are real) that have horns upon their heads. (horns are real)

What attributes does a god have that equate to something that is real and exists ?

And are we talking about an imaginary god that we are creating or a real god that actually exists ?

Sure, we can define all kinds of imaginary gods because we are creating them in our minds.

But if we are talking about a real god, then it's attributes are unknown. We have no way of determining what it actually is beyond painting it with imaginary attributes.

A god is invisible like those invisible things on earth....you know, those real things on earth that are invisible. He's like that. And everyone is probably thinking "What invisible real things on earth are you talking about ?"

Exactly- there is no reference point for that.

Any attribute you are giving a god is one that you are creating, not one that you have discovered.

You can define any imaginary god you wish, but you can't define a real god until you can demonstrate that such a thing actually exists.
Until then, all we can talk about are imaginary gods.