Debating an agnostic

[Ozymandyus]

Knows through faith... What does that even MEAN! :lol: If you can believe in something so strongly that it becomes knowledge, I am going to make myself a God. Screw this believing in some other God crap.

It baffles me how we all butcher/twist the language meant to convey meaning and understanding. (me included)

But anyway, sure if we are going by this definition of agnostic as belief or disbelief in what can be absolutely known, I'm as agnostic as they come. Now I need a label for people who are honestly unsure about faith issues (less sure than they are about all other unfalsifiable knowledge, like fairies.) Do we have any?

 

[Spase]

Haha :lol:

Yeah... that's the trouble with language. At this point so many people have subverted the term agnostic that you might as well use it the way most people do. Just make sure you and the other person are having the same argument before you get too involved

It's like how the word faith is given a positive connotation despite it's definition in the context of "faith in God." Or even the way words like unusual have a negative connotation despite the fact that given the state of the general populace I'd very much rather not be usual.

There's always this battle of, "Should I speak to communicate effectively or should I use words according to definition.."

 

[Orsbore]

This is definitely a semantic argument, which cannot possibly be resolved without agreement on the meaning of the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. These words have multiple and overlapping definitions. A person can be both, depending on the definition used.

Here are a couple that I've heard for atheist:
Hard atheist: one who is completely convinced that there are no gods.
Soft atheist: one who is not completely convinced but considers the possibility to be so low that it really isn't worth considering.

Agnostic is often defined as someone who thinks that maybe there are gods, and maybe there aren't. This definition describes soft atheists.

Agnostic is also used to describe someone who thinks it isn't possible to know whether or not there are gods.

I have a problem with that definition: if gods really do exist, and they can do all that it's claimed that they can do, then they could easily prove their existence at any time. So, to say that it isn't possible to know, is pretty much like saying that there are no gods.

 

[GoodKat]

I have a problem with that definition: if gods really do exist, and they can do all that it's claimed that they can do, then they could easily prove their existence at any time. So, to say that it isn't possible to know, is pretty much like saying that there are no gods.

That still would not prove their existence, it could just be aliens messing with us/a glitch in the matrix, ect. Although I'm pretty sure the definition you are referring to is in reference to currently available evidence.

 

[Orsbore]

That still would not prove their existence, it could just be aliens messing with us/a glitch in the matrix, ect.

If you're going to take it to that level, then you may as well just say that it's not possible to prove anything.

Although I'm pretty sure the definition you are referring to is in reference to currently available evidence.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Which goes back to what I was saying about earlier about the need for clearly defined terms.

 

[GoodKat]

If you're going to take it to that level, then you may as well just say that it's not possible to prove anything.

Lightning bolts proving the existence of Zeus comes to mind...

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Which goes back to what I was saying about earlier about the need for clearly defined terms.

Perhaps that would be the best definition for agnostic would be "one who believes that the existence of God is unknowable given the currently available evidence."

 

[Orsbore]

Lightning bolts proving the existence of Zeus comes to mind...

That's a far cry from meddlesome aliens or glitches in 'the matrix'.

Perhaps that would be the best definition for agnostic would be "one who believes that the existence of God is unknowable given the currently available evidence."

That's fine by me, but I know from discussions I've had with "dictionary quoters" that not all dictionaries define the word in that manner.

I don't care to insist that any single definition of any word is the only acceptable one, or even, which definition is best, but if I'm going to discuss something with someone, then I like to make sure that we're in agreement about what it is that's being discussed. That's all.

 

[GoodKat]

That's a far cry from meddlesome aliens or glitches in 'the matrix'.

My point is that historically humans have mistaken natural phenomena for the acts of God(s).

 

[Orsbore]

My point is that historically humans have mistaken natural phenomena for the acts of God(s).

You chose a strange way to make that point.

If the god Zeus were to reveal himself to me, and were to give me a demonstration of his lightning hurling ability, I would take that as proof of the existence of Zeus.

Your point was that it could be an alien messing with me or a glitch in the matrix.

Using that logic, I could go to a person's home and poke him in the eye with a blunt stick, and even that shouldn't be proof to him that I'm a human who exists.

I'm not sure exactly what we're discussing here. Which, in a way, seems rather like the situation described in the opening post.

If you're just wanting to argue, and you're going to say something contrary to whatever I say without regard to the conversation that has taken place, please tell me. Frankly, I don't care to play that game.

 

[GoodKat]

I just looked back at one of your posts and realized that I had misread it, sorry.

 

[Orsbore]

No sweat, my friend.

 

[Spase]

[...]

Agnostic is also used to describe someone who thinks it isn't possible to know whether or not there are gods.

I have a problem with that definition: if gods really do exist, and they can do all that it's claimed that they can do, then they could easily prove their existence at any time. So, to say that it isn't possible to know, is pretty much like saying that there are no gods.

Okay. Let me clarify my position since it's the one you disagree with, or are least aren't completely comfortable with.

Gods as I am addressing them bear at least some resemblance to what Christians or pagans or whatever describe them as. They exist in a metaphysical sense. They have the ability to effect the material world but are not subject to its laws.

They cannot be disproved because a Christian can always say, "He's testing your faith, lulz." The question of whether they can be proven is more slippery. If one did happen to exist even if it were to reveal itself to us it would have to be via the material world since that's where we exist. We would be able to measure the specific effects such a being had on our world and more importantly would only be able to detect such a being through it's effect on our world. How then do we prove that this "god" also exists outside our world? If it doesn't exist outside our world is it a god at all or just another life form?

The question of what exists outside the material world we are subject to seems like mental masturbation. It might feel good to think about it but ultimately it achieves nothing. I would describe my agnosticism as the belief that claims made about beings that exist by definition in realms we have no access to are by nature impossible to prove or disprove and therefor generally a waste of time to contemplate.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

If the god Zeus were to reveal himself to me, and were to give me a demonstration of his lightning hurling ability, I would take that as proof of the existence of Zeus.

But that doesn't mean that lightning proves Zeus - it means that lightning hurled by Zeus, in person, before your eyes . . . is proof of Zeus. Natural phenomena have been often taken as proof of Gods without cause.

 

[Orsbore]

Okay. Let me clarify my position since it's the one you disagree with, or are least aren't completely comfortable with.

Gods as I am addressing them bear at least some resemblance to what Christians or pagans or whatever describe them as. They exist in a metaphysical sense. They have the ability to effect the material world but are not subject to its laws.

You can believe whatever you like about gods. I don't care. Sorry if I've offended your religious sensibilities.

My purpose in posting to this thread was to address an issue of semantics, that is, the importance of having clearly defined terms within the context of a discussion.

I would describe my agnosticism as the belief that claims made about beings that exist by definition in realms we have no access to are by nature impossible to prove or disprove and therefor generally a waste of time to contemplate.

With the possible exception of the Hindu god, Brahman, all the stories I've heard of gods make the claim that they exist, at least in part, within our material realm. I didn't say that WE could prove or disprove their existence. I said only that if they exist, then THEY could prove to us that they exist.

As long as they can prove their existence, then it is possible to know that they exist. If they can't do that, then it would be impossible.

 

[Orsbore]

But that doesn't mean that lightning proves Zeus

I haven't tried to suggest that it does.

it means that lightning hurled by Zeus, in person, before your eyes . . . is proof of Zeus.

Yes, that's what I was saying

Natural phenomena have been often taken as proof of Gods without cause.

Yes, I know. Did I say something that made you think otherwise?

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Yes, I know. Did I say something that made you think otherwise?

I suppose your wording wasn't particularly clear to me.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Him: You atheists are as bad as religious people. You can't prove god exists, nor can you prove he does not, so atheism is as much a blind faith as theism.

Me: Failure to believe in something that there is no evidence for hardly counts as a faith. The burden of proof should be on the believers.

Him: But how do you know god doesn't exist? Why are you closed to that possibility?

Me: I agree that it's possible god could exist in the same way that unicorns might exist. Sure, in theory they could, but there is no evidence for them, so why should we believe in them?

Him: But you can't prove god doesn't exist, so why do you disbelieve in him? Shouldn't you have evidence that he does not exist?

Me: I can't prove he doesn't exist, that's impossible. Look, all gods and all religions are pretty much just different types of unicorns, they all share only the trait that they are made up by humans. If you are going to pick one to believe, or even to accept as a possibility, you should at least have some reason to believe in it but not the others, you need evidence of some kind. Otherwise, how can you possibly know that it's not just another unicorn?

Him: But you don't know that their god isn't real! You have no evidence, just like them. So you telling a theist that god isn't real is arrogant, narrow-minded and just as fundamentalist as they are. Atheists' beliefs and theists' beliefs are equally valid! You thinking your beliefs are "above" a theists' beliefs is what is stupid.

What would you have said?

It sounds like you both had a failure to communicate. He was arguing on the assumption that atheists assert the non-existence of God without proof. You were arguing on the assumption that atheists do not believe in God based on lack of evidence, but at least have the understanding to know you can't prove it.

What was not established between you two is that not all atheists assert that there is no God as if they can prove it. I would agree to a point with the guy in that any atheist that can sit there and say 'there is no God' is not much better than the theist that says 'there is a God' or 'there is no Allah'. At the same time, however, there are plenty of atheists (like myself) who don't really assert that there are no gods, they just take the lack of evidence for it's existence to mean gods probably don't exist.

 

[buzzausa]

What would you have said?

I've heard some time ago (don't remember where) what I believe is the best way to deal with these situations. Ask your counterpart (religious or "fundamental agnostic") to define god. If you want to be able to assess if something does or does not exist you must be able to define what that something is.
Most people will not be able to give you a definition that is usable in a logic argument. Things like "god is spirit" or "god is outside the physical world" or something along those lines that shows they have no good answer. If you can't even define (again... in a tangible manner) what it is you're talking about how can you prove it does or it "might" exist?