the line between agnostic and atheist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » the line between agnostic and atheist » the line between agnostic and atheist

the line between agnostic and atheist
Its logical but is it practical?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Last

the line between agnostic and atheist

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 05/12/08 - 03:40 PM:	#71
Makarismos wrote: I used to think that agnosticism was the only rational position, as it is pretty obvious that proving gods existence or lack their of is impossible. Then I was challenged on this, and called an atheist - as I did not believe in god. The person who challenged my position claimed I was just an atheist, this I feel is incorrect. There is strong atheism: I believe god does not exist, and I know for a fact that this is the case (I even have proof!). Then the weak atheist: I believe there is no god, but admit that god’s existence is possible. Then the agnostic: I don’t know what to believe, but I am certain that there is no proof that god either exists or does not exist. Then there is the Ignostic: Questions as to the existence or non existence of god are ill founded, until we more clearly define what it is exactly that we mean by the term "god". I now class myself ignostic. I was thinking about this again, too. And I too am leaning toward this ignostic category. I’ve long thought that this sort of non-cognitivism in morality makes the most sense, and somebody was arguing for the incomprehensibility of claims about God a couple of months or so ago, and that made an impression on me. And I recently ran into the term theological noncognitivism--which strikes me as meaning the same thing as ignostic??? But the point I was thinking about is this. About the God as defined by the theologians, I guess I am ignostic—I cannot conceive of what they’re talking about (and neither do I believe that they themselves can conceive of what they’re talking about—they just say words and more words that don’t really mean anything. Their predicates and explanations are unintelligible mouth noise. However, God as conceived by everybody but theologians isn’t really the same as the God defined by the theologians. People may give some lip service to predicates such as omniscient, and omnipresent, and omni-benevolent, and omnipotent etc. but I am convinced that what they actually conceive of is some really powerful, really intelligent, really awesome, really good creator being who knows everything that people do and has an inscrutable plan for everything, and is really on our side, wanting the very best for us. Since such a concept is intelligible, about this God, I am atheistic. About space alien beings who are so superior to us that they are virtually deities I am agnostic. As for the opinion expressed above: that your belief is only relevant if it causes changes in your actions: If this is the case, why do religious people talk about god at all? Why do I, an ignostic, meditate on a daily basis? Why do many so called 'christians' spend their Sabbath in the pub, or at a BBQ, or mowing the lawn? If we take behaviour to be the only relevant benchmark, why bother talking at all? It seems entirely pointless under those criteria. The human genius for compartmentalization and rationalization at work. Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 313

Posted 05/12/08 - 03:49 PM:	#72
I just want to share some thoughts, not so much about how agnosticism is removed from atheism, but about how agnosticism is removed from rationality. Firstly, the agnostic says something akin to the following statement: "We cannot prove that such a claim is true; we cannot prove that such a claim is false; therefore, it is only rational to conclude that I do not know, you do not know, nobody can (or will) know". Agnosticism therefore is the belief in ignorance. Agnosticism raises the arbitrary from a level where it should be ignored and disrespected to a level of real consideration. Agnostics permit the possibility of these arbitrary matters being "true"; and he only respects the proof that others give: "just prove that (insert imaginary entity) doesn't exist!" Agnostics like to feel as if they have taken the safe ground, one that no one can refute because it takes no ground at all. But the agnostic is more irrational than the most zealous theist, because he has taken all the arbitrary claims that could ever be made and compares them with those which are logical and evidentially supported. He supports an irrational equality of ideas: that one claim, based on evidence, is no better than any one else, whether or not based on evidence. In such a fashion, agnostics can either be a (1) destructor or (2) conscious coward. (1) Because they like to destroy the convictions of those who have them, thriving on the questions they inspire in others and (2) because they refuse to take a position in the fear that it may offend others. Reason is the only source of knowledge. Agnostics seem to hold "I don't know" as the smartest thing one can say. Thus, agnostics take up an irrational position and thought process.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 05/12/08 - 05:33 PM:	#73
Well said Rational Animal. I've always thought that although there are some people who really are in a quandary, the vast majority of self-proclaimed agnostics are pedantic weasels. If I was God I'd burn them first. Or maybe the theologians first and then the agnostics. I'd flip a coin. Which is pretty pointless since I'd know how it's going to land, but I'd do it anyway just for effect. Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 72

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:14 PM:	#74
The_Rational_Animal wrote: I just want to share some thoughts, not so much about how agnosticism is removed from atheism, but about how agnosticism is removed from rationality. Firstly, the agnostic says something akin to the following statement: "We cannot prove that such a claim is true; we cannot prove that such a claim is false; therefore, it is only rational to conclude that I do not know, you do not know, nobody can (or will) know". Agnosticism therefore is the belief in ignorance. Agnosticism raises the arbitrary from a level where it should be ignored and disrespected to a level of real consideration. Agnostics permit the possibility of these arbitrary matters being "true"; and he only respects the proof that others give: "just prove that (insert imaginary entity) doesn't exist!" Agnostics like to feel as if they have taken the safe ground, one that no one can refute because it takes no ground at all. But the agnostic is more irrational than the most zealous theist, because he has taken all the arbitrary claims that could ever be made and compares them with those which are logical and evidentially supported. He supports an irrational equality of ideas: that one claim, based on evidence, is no better than any one else, whether or not based on evidence. In such a fashion, agnostics can either be a (1) destructor or (2) conscious coward. (1) Because they like to destroy the convictions of those who have them, thriving on the questions they inspire in others and (2) because they refuse to take a position in the fear that it may offend others. Reason is the only source of knowledge. Agnostics seem to hold "I don't know" as the smartest thing one can say. Thus, agnostics take up an irrational position and thought process. The truth of the matter is, we truly don't know. Nor do you, nor does anyone else. You don't seem to want to recognize that fact.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 74
Total Posts: 4029

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:20 PM:	#75
These sketches seem reasonable to me: Theism -- "I do not believe in any god(s) except (my) One True God." Atheism -- "I do not believe in any god(s) because there are good reasons (e.g. conceptual incoherence; object impossibility; uniformity (i.e. closed causality) of nature; etc) to believe that god(s) do not exist (except in the imagination)." Nontheism -- "I do not believe in god(s) because there are no good reasons (i.e. sufficient evidence + sound arguments) to believe that god(s) exist." Agnosticism -- "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist(s) ..." "Agnostics" are not irrational, they simply refuse to think through the implications of what they do know (i.e. cannot rationally deny about reality). WW_III_ANGRY wrote: The truth of the matter is, we truly don't know. Nor do you, nor does anyone else. You don't seem to want to recognize that fact. Yes, we do not "know" ... So what? Edited by 180 Proof on 05/12/08 - 07:27 PM. Reason: What's your non-point?
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 72

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:38 PM:	#76
180 Proof wrote: These sketches seem reasonable to me: Theism -- "I do not believe in any god(s) except (my) One True God." Atheism -- "I do not believe in any god(s) because there are good reasons (e.g. conceptual incoherence; object impossibility; uniformity (i.e. closed causality) of nature; etc) to believe that god(s) do not exist (except in the imagination)." Nontheism -- "I do not believe in god(s) because there are no good reasons (i.e. sufficient evidence + sound arguments) to believe that god(s) exist." Agnosticism -- "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist(s) ..." "Agnostics" are not irrational, they simply refuse to think through the implications of what they do know (i.e. cannot rationally deny about reality). Yes, we do not "know" ... So what? So it is not belief in ignorance, whatever that is, or is it what the poster I replied to tried to make agnosticism seem like.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 74
Total Posts: 4029

Posted 05/12/08 - 08:32 PM:	#77
WW_III_ANGRY wrote: So it is not belief in ignorance, whatever that is, or is it what the poster I replied to tried to make agnosticism seem like. It's intellectual laziness. No one knows whether or not Santa Claus exists, and yet ...
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 97

Posted 05/12/08 - 10:35 PM:	#78
180 Proof wrote: It's intellectual laziness. No one knows whether or not Santa Claus exists, and yet ... And yet...what exactly? Your characterisation of agnosticism seems incomplete as well. Are you claiming that agnostics are those who just assert that "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist", or is there supposed to be something following that that your "..." seems to indicate? I'm having trouble seeing what you base your accusation of intellectual laziness on.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 74
Total Posts: 4029

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:38 AM:	#79
klorius wrote: Your characterisation of agnosticism seems incomplete as well. Are you claiming that agnostics are those who just assert that "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist", or is there supposed to be something following that that your "..." seems to indicate? Belief / disbelief in (a) "god" presupposes an answer to the question of (a) god's existence. Theists presuppose that "god exists" based on faith rather than sound argument / sufficient evidence; atheists presuppose that "god does not exist" precisely because there are no sound arguments / sufficient evidence in favor of that positive claim. The agnostic, however, merely refrains from answering by claiming that he doesn't "know enough" to answer one way or the other; but that's a lazy excuse: like Santa Claus, there are many sound reasons to doubt that "god exists" and no sound reasons to believe that "god exists". We may not have direct knowledge -- since "god", after all, "transcends" mere factuality / spacetime -- of "god's existence", but this sort of "ignorance" props itself up against a compendious background of indirect knowledge (e.g. uniformity of nature (re: contra "miracles" / supernaturalia), incoherence of god-concepts, mutually-excluding / self-contradicting "special revelations", etc) which agnostics simply ignore. They are not ignorant of "god's existence" so much as they ignore existence itself when considering the pros & cons and fail to think through which arguments are more consistent with existence as a whole (i.e. the best available knowledge of it which is patently irrational to deny). Edited by 180 Proof on 05/13/08 - 01:44 AM. Reason: ...
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 692

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:52 AM:	#80
180 - what do you mean by god? How can you be so sure, so certain, that "god" does not exist? If you cannot be sure, what is all this talk of certainty? Secondly, Do you mean that one particular conception of god does not exist, or that no possible conceptions of god can exist? I would agree that some conceptions of god seem to be inconsistent, but some seem rather sensible abstractions. Thirdly, do you take nothing at all based upon faith? Surely this would require you to reject any claims that had no rigorous supporting evidence, scientifically gathered, and found upon balance to be both falsifiable and unfalsified: this I would contend is not a consistent approach to take if one wants to act within society, and if you want I'll explain why when I have more time.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.