-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Agnosticism is Dishonesty
- Thread starter DepricatedZero
- Start date
RichardMNixon
New Member
Yfelsung said:
That's completely irrelevant. If god or gravitons are found to exist, our understanding of the universe will change substantially. If dragons or unicorns are found to exist, much less so.
Fictionarious
New Member
I consider myself an ignostic atheist.
By this I mean that I am gnostic or agnostic in my atheism depending upon the God in question.
The God of the bible who is omnipotent yet can't defeat the armies of the plains peoples because they had Iron Chariots, is an account of a God that has an internal contradiction. In just the same way that I can conclude that a circular square does not exist because a shape can only be one or the other, I can conclude with gnostic logical certainty that the God of the Bible does not exist.
However, on the more general question of Gods encompassing the Greek Titans and deist gods and all other gods of vague or unspecified traits/accomplishments, I am agnostic because the existence of god in the most general sense of invisible-undetectable-creator-of-the-universe, cannot be falsified. That is, cannot be proven or dis-proven by any conceivable experiment or observation.
This makes me ignostic.
By this I mean that I am gnostic or agnostic in my atheism depending upon the God in question.
The God of the bible who is omnipotent yet can't defeat the armies of the plains peoples because they had Iron Chariots, is an account of a God that has an internal contradiction. In just the same way that I can conclude that a circular square does not exist because a shape can only be one or the other, I can conclude with gnostic logical certainty that the God of the Bible does not exist.
However, on the more general question of Gods encompassing the Greek Titans and deist gods and all other gods of vague or unspecified traits/accomplishments, I am agnostic because the existence of god in the most general sense of invisible-undetectable-creator-of-the-universe, cannot be falsified. That is, cannot be proven or dis-proven by any conceivable experiment or observation.
This makes me ignostic.
ShootMyMonkey
New Member
It seems there are a number of fundamental errors about what constitutes logic and objectivity here that creates the completely artificial position of a "pure" agnostic. And they're a very sadly common series of misconceptions.
Number one is this idea of confusing objectivity with a sense of apparent fairness/balance. Objectivity is NOT fair. Objectivity is about strict adherence to the search for truth. It does mean having to take sides. If you are met with a conjecture which cannot be disproven at all, then what you have is something that also cannot be supported at all... at least not by logic, reason, or evidence in any form. That means, from an objective point of view, it is not at all admissible. It is not even worthy of inclusion in the first place. Now if you have something which can be proven or disproven, but no evidence has been shown to support it, you do not take an in-between position simply because it hasn't yet been disproven. If it has no evidence, it holds no weight. Doesn't mean it never can, but it means that it is objectively worthless as far as ideas go. Whatever hasn't been shown to exist is equal in weight to whatever does not exist at all.
Number two is the notion that the default stance to take is no stance at all. This is wrong. It seems natural to think this way because it seems like when you're an outside observer in some personal argument, it pays to be impartial, but that isn't something that applies universally. In a lot of personal tiffs, it is reasonable to be impartial because it is possible for both sides to be partially right, partially wrong, or even entirely wrong altogether. This doesn't really apply in an argument where you can't have it both ways (i.e. mutual exclusivity). For instance, in a criminal court case, the question of guilty or not guilty are mutually exclusive because no one can be simultaneously guilty and innocent. You cannot simply start out with the position that the defendant is half-guilty and half-not-guilty. The hypothesis you're attempting to prove is the one that the defendant actually did something wrong, which makes the null hypothesis that he did nothing at all (worth mentioning). Similarly, a god cannot simultaneously exist and not exist. You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in its existence. Because atheism does not posit the existence of anything which has not been shown to exist, it is the null hypothesis, and that makes it the proper default position. It is the theist which posits the existence of some entity, which means it is up to the theist to prove the claim.
Thirdly, there is the point that countering evidence has been presented. It isn't just that theists have not presented evidence to make belief in a deity appear reasonable... They've also presented an abundance of evidence NOT to believe. There has been a long history of highly specific theistic claims that X will happen, Y actually has an effect, Z is only possible because of God... ALL of which, without exception, have been disproven... ALL of them have entirely real-world explanations which demand no magical forces. In the face of all this, the same people making those claims are unflappable in repeating the same claims over and over again saying it's true because it's true because it's true because it just is!!! This, to a very large degree, demonstrates that the entire basis of their beliefs are illogical. Furthermore, when they have a problem with reality itself because that which has been shown in reality doesn't agree with their beliefs, that further demonstrates that no part of their belief system is contingent on fact. If an idea is not contingent on fact, it is wrong. Plain and simple.
You want to tell me that maybe a deity who existed in an entirely external universe willed our universe into existence and then left, that's a very broad claim. Even with all the knowledge in the universe at my disposal, there's no way I can say that no such being could ever exist. Of course, a full-blown theist or follower of any specific religious dogma still has a great deal more specificity in their claim, and there is a lot more they have to prove. Furthermore, the deist god posed earlier, while not really disproven, is just as unsupported as the theist claim. Even if proven, it would also make for a deity which is entirely irrelevant. At the very least, a theist deity, if proven, would hold a lot of relevance and yet, there is a great deal to suggest this is not the case at all.
Number one is this idea of confusing objectivity with a sense of apparent fairness/balance. Objectivity is NOT fair. Objectivity is about strict adherence to the search for truth. It does mean having to take sides. If you are met with a conjecture which cannot be disproven at all, then what you have is something that also cannot be supported at all... at least not by logic, reason, or evidence in any form. That means, from an objective point of view, it is not at all admissible. It is not even worthy of inclusion in the first place. Now if you have something which can be proven or disproven, but no evidence has been shown to support it, you do not take an in-between position simply because it hasn't yet been disproven. If it has no evidence, it holds no weight. Doesn't mean it never can, but it means that it is objectively worthless as far as ideas go. Whatever hasn't been shown to exist is equal in weight to whatever does not exist at all.
Number two is the notion that the default stance to take is no stance at all. This is wrong. It seems natural to think this way because it seems like when you're an outside observer in some personal argument, it pays to be impartial, but that isn't something that applies universally. In a lot of personal tiffs, it is reasonable to be impartial because it is possible for both sides to be partially right, partially wrong, or even entirely wrong altogether. This doesn't really apply in an argument where you can't have it both ways (i.e. mutual exclusivity). For instance, in a criminal court case, the question of guilty or not guilty are mutually exclusive because no one can be simultaneously guilty and innocent. You cannot simply start out with the position that the defendant is half-guilty and half-not-guilty. The hypothesis you're attempting to prove is the one that the defendant actually did something wrong, which makes the null hypothesis that he did nothing at all (worth mentioning). Similarly, a god cannot simultaneously exist and not exist. You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in its existence. Because atheism does not posit the existence of anything which has not been shown to exist, it is the null hypothesis, and that makes it the proper default position. It is the theist which posits the existence of some entity, which means it is up to the theist to prove the claim.
Thirdly, there is the point that countering evidence has been presented. It isn't just that theists have not presented evidence to make belief in a deity appear reasonable... They've also presented an abundance of evidence NOT to believe. There has been a long history of highly specific theistic claims that X will happen, Y actually has an effect, Z is only possible because of God... ALL of which, without exception, have been disproven... ALL of them have entirely real-world explanations which demand no magical forces. In the face of all this, the same people making those claims are unflappable in repeating the same claims over and over again saying it's true because it's true because it's true because it just is!!! This, to a very large degree, demonstrates that the entire basis of their beliefs are illogical. Furthermore, when they have a problem with reality itself because that which has been shown in reality doesn't agree with their beliefs, that further demonstrates that no part of their belief system is contingent on fact. If an idea is not contingent on fact, it is wrong. Plain and simple.
You want to tell me that maybe a deity who existed in an entirely external universe willed our universe into existence and then left, that's a very broad claim. Even with all the knowledge in the universe at my disposal, there's no way I can say that no such being could ever exist. Of course, a full-blown theist or follower of any specific religious dogma still has a great deal more specificity in their claim, and there is a lot more they have to prove. Furthermore, the deist god posed earlier, while not really disproven, is just as unsupported as the theist claim. Even if proven, it would also make for a deity which is entirely irrelevant. At the very least, a theist deity, if proven, would hold a lot of relevance and yet, there is a great deal to suggest this is not the case at all.
Lurking_Logic
New Member
You made claims as to not being able to know the answer to the God questionlrkun said:
So I merely need to say that I accept your definition of Agnosticism and then reject you definition of Atheism on those same grounds
To call atheism anything like that if you accept agnosticism is hypocrisy
No not wrong
Because as another person showed you picked one of many definitions
Yours needs to show itslef more reliable
How can you abstain
f you believe then are a theist
Anything else and you are an Atheist
Abstaining would be to withhold taking a position making you a default Atheist
Lurking_Logic
New Member
So you believe what you don't know?lrkun said:
Cos if you don't then I'm sorry to say but you are an Atheist (Someone who doesn't believe in God)
If you do then you are a Theist
Now I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Too bad, I was having fun. Oh, and if you are interested - Burden of prooflrkun said:
Aught3 said:
Ah philosophy
So it means because atheist reject god, the default would be god exists. >.< I don't like the idea.The problem with that is the burden shifts depending on the party who makes the claim or position.
I prefer an objective approah where no sides are claimed.
No, wrong on both counts. Rejecting a proposition doesn't incur the same burden as asserting one. If you were to make the statement "gods do not exist" then you would be faced with a burden of proof. The default in this case would be the rejection of the claim that gods do not exist.lrkun said:Ah philosophy
It is correct that the burden shifts depending on who makes the claim but this is a strength of imposing a burden of proof rather than a problem.lrkun said:
Welcome to default/implicit/weak/whatever-you-want-to-call-it atheismlrkun said:
Perhaps Irkun doesn't know whether s/he believes in gods or not. But I leave it to Irkun to clarify that for me.Lurking_Logic said:
As a side note, is it possible to be unaware of your own belief-state on a particular subject? I'm not sure that it is - perhaps in a transition phase :?
theatheistguy
New Member
...I know what a dictionary is. So I write book, put the word 'dictionary' on the front, and you'll believe what it says? Or how about another dictionary that agrees with me, does that make yours wrong? What argument has Oxford made that convinces you of it's definition over any other dictionary or mine?lrkun said:
Even you know that the definition you've just given is bullshit. That definition fits what I like to terms as a 'dickhead'. If one explains their term upon first usage, then no confusion is necessary. In this forum you'd be hard pressed to find many who agree with you, therefore it is in fact you who is creating confusion.
I know the scientific method quite well thank you, and I've used it to explain how you're wrong. Atheism is not an evidence based position and agnosticism can apply to both atheists and theists, so it cannot possibly be in the middle of the two.
Fictionarious
New Member
A person cannot "decide" to believe or disbelieve. If you believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow, then you believe it.
Also, this modern distinction between "belief" and "knowledge" that makes debates like this possible is beginning to annoy me. You cannot possibly believe in something you don't know anymore than you can disbelieve in something you do know. We're all a bunch of atheists here as far as I'm concerned, and that's what I'm going to call us. Also,
YES, that's what I was trying to figure out how to say, ShootMyMonkey. Exceptionally well-said.
Also, this modern distinction between "belief" and "knowledge" that makes debates like this possible is beginning to annoy me. You cannot possibly believe in something you don't know anymore than you can disbelieve in something you do know. We're all a bunch of atheists here as far as I'm concerned, and that's what I'm going to call us. Also,
YES, that's what I was trying to figure out how to say, ShootMyMonkey. Exceptionally well-said.
ShootMyMonkey
New Member
Mind elaborating? Like what point you specifically have problems with? If your idea of making an argument is to simply dismiss it out of hand, then you don't speak very well for the same objectivity which you claim to have. Moreover, that you immediately declare it to be an opinion to make it easy to simply say you disagree and leave it at that... that's laziness. I'd like to know what you thought was the "opinion" you disagreed with. Most of it was not an opinion at all, but expositions about basic rules of scientific and logical study of any subject... either that, or it was just plain fact. Very little of that post was opinion, so would you mind telling me where the problem lay?lrkun said:
The point about objectivity being not the same thing as fairness -- NOT an opinion.
The point about falsifiability (though I didn't use that word) being key to provability by evidence -- NOT an opinion.
The point about unproven being equal in weight to disproven -- NOT an opinion.
The point about atheism being the null hypothesis -- NOT an opinion.
The point about belief and disbelief being mutually exclusive -- NOT an opinion.
The point about a long history of specific theistic claims having been disproven -- NOT an opinion.
The point about beliefs which are not contingent on fact being intrinsically wrong -- NOT really an opinion, though I slipped slightly in giving the impression of extending that to the complete belief system as a whole.
I take the position that you are wrong about a great many things, but I at least explain WHY I think you're wrong. Yes, it may result in some hurtful words here and there, but I'd rather be honest than not. Is it too much to ask that you extend the same courtesy?
Except atheists do NOT universally say that "god definitely does not exist"... No one would say that there are zero atheists who say that, but that's not the definition of atheism. It's a spectrum of people who simply don't believe all the way to full-on believe the counterpoint that god definitely does not exist. "God does not exist" is the limit point, it's not the minimum bar to cross for atheism. This has been explained to you numerous times before, and you've blindly rejected it without even entertaining the possibility -- and that's you're idea of objectivity? Especially for you, who confuses objectivity with even-handedness, that pretty much constitutes disgraceful behavior.lrkun said:
Most of those who claim flatly that god does not exist are either extremely enraged by the bottomless depths of theistic stupidity (which is understandable) and are thinking with their anger, or they actually subscribe to a religious belief system which openly rejects the existence of gods (e.g. Buddhism, Raelian, etc). The notion that atheism, by definition, is the absolute claim that god does not exist is a canard created by theists so that they can shift the burden of proof off from themselves. Well, that and religious people, by in large, like to group people with very hard boundaries (an artifact of the "us vs. them" mentality), and unfortunately, you can't really do that with atheists, because there's really only one unifying characteristic and nothing else beyond that.
That is correct. And that's exactly why atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive of each other. Neither are theism and agnosticism. This is why you can have such a thing as an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnosticism makes claims about knowledge and/or knowability, not belief. Atheism and theism are about state of belief/disbelief. Similarly, it means also, that when you claim that we do not/can not know about the existence or non-existence of a god, it doesn't actually answer the question of what you actually believe. There's no right or wrong answer here; it's simply a question about what the actual state of your belief is. Do you believe there is more likely a god than not? Do you believe there is more likely not a god? Do you believe that the two are equally probable? Whether or not the rest of us feel the need to argue against your view is a separate point entirely. Not having any belief/disbelief at all isn't possible for one, and secondly, it's not a choice -- it's the lack of a choice. It's not something people do in the name of objectivity -- it's cowardice in the face of potential confrontation.lrkun said:
By your definition of agnostic, I'm an agnostic as well, since I don't claim absolutely that there is no god. I am certain, however, that any of the images of god exactly in the form posited by any extant religious dogma does not exist, which is not the same as saying any conceivable or inconceivable form of a god/godlike being does not exist. I am also an atheist because I do not believe there is a god in any sense because there is literally zero evidence supporting it, and a vast sum of sound reasons not to believe it. I am also an anti-theist in that I am against the very idea of having the belief that there is a god simply because it is demonstrably harmful, illogical, and is provably the wrong position to take as a default. Is the combination of those three hard for you to imagine or do you say there is no such possibility?
Because you don't seem to follow what I'm saying. I'll do my best to clarify things for you.
a. I use the scale to determine whether or not their is evidence to support that 1. god exists 2. god does not exist
On the left hand side of the scale (god does not exist.)
On the right hand side of the scale (god exists.)
If there is evidence to support the existence of god, then the scale tilts to the right.
If there is evidence to support the that god does not exit, then the scale tilts to the left.
However, since there is no proof that can be provided that either a god exists or does not exist. Then it follows that the default position of the scale remains at status quo. Therefore the question has not been answered.
I am using the scale as a basis for my choice either to believe/abstain/reject.
If it is in balanced position, because there is no evidence. Then I abstain from claiming that a god exists or does not exists.
Suppose there is existence in support of a god. Therefore I can state, I am persuaded by the evidence to accept that a god exists.
Suppose there is proof that god does not exist. Therefore I can state, I am persuaded by the evidence or the evidence suggests that god does not exist.
Suppose there is neither. Therefore I can state, since there is no evidence to support either side, I don't know.
-oOo-
In the case of a creationist claiming that a god exists. An atheist would say, prove it. The burden of proof lies with the creationist.
If the creationist cannot provided proof, it only means that there is no proof for gods existence. That does not necessarily mean that a god does not exist. That requires another set of proof.
If the atheists states that your god does not exist, the creationist can state, prove it. The burden of proof now lies with the atheist.
If the atheist cannot provide proof, it only means that there is no proof for the nonexistence of a god. That does not necessarily mean that a god exist. Again that requires another set of evidence.
In the case of an agnostic. Such a person just doesn't know, because there is no known evidence at the moment. So such a person can abstain from deciding. It's akin to someone with an open mind who waits for proof before making a stand.
In the case of the second definition of an agnostic. Such a person is questionable, because he or she already made a stand that nothing can ever be known.
-oOo-
Now since there is no evidence to support either side. A person makes the choice, if he or she believes or disbelieves in the existence of a god. The important thing to consider is, such a choice is not made with the use of experiment or the scientific method.
I hope this clears things up. :lol: