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

the line between agnostic and atheist

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2789

Posted 07/02/08 - 09:03 AM:	#201
Reformed Nihilist wrote: What's a non-literal belief? It is a belief that a religious person claims to be immune from specificity in order to shield it from scrutiny but that this same person will claim to be exactly specific when trying to justify their own, otherwise abhorrent, actions.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 691

Posted 07/02/08 - 02:58 PM: Subject: A brief reply...	#202
Reformed Nihilist wrote: That's what I've been saying from the start and what you appeared to be criticizing at the start of this discussion. The reason for the criticism was my interpretation of what you said - which I am glad to say we seem to have cleared up. You have seemed up until the last few posts to be using the terms "religious" "theist" or even "spiritual" to refer to all of those who either practiced any religion, or believed that there may be truth to claims which seem to require a "supernatural" explanation. Since post #194 when you said:- Reformed Nihilist wrote: I am saying that the treatment of these stories as if they were facts without any evidence is not a healthy social practice. Is that explicit enough? We had reached some kind of agreement that you were explicitly saying merely that the literal belief in religious texts was damaging to society. You explicitly said you were not hinting at anything deeper, and I took you at your word. I have never disputed this rather weaker claim, only the stronger claim which could be stated Claim A: All those who either practice or believe in X for which the ideas on which X is founded cannot be falsified scientifically, are lunatic. It seems now that you never intended such a strong claim, and so the main disagreement between us is past. Unless you did mean to make that claim, in which case we could discuss it further. Reformed Nihilist wrote: But why should "the faithful" get kid gloves? If they are alienated by what started oiut as being a fairly simple (and non offensive to anyone who doesn't hold the lunatic belief) statement, that the suggestion that the stories in the bible really happened would normally be considered lunatic. Someone who believed in a large number of these sorts of beliefs and acted upon them would actually be hospitalized in a psychiatric institute. These are simple and true statements of fact, and yet there is such a social protection mechanism around religion, that any speaking that even hints at an attack on it is labels as intolerant. Well, Is there something wrong with being intolerant of socially accepted and protected lunacy? Your main criticism of religion has been that it is a bad for society. In post #194 you describe "treatment of these facts without evidence" as an unhealthy social practice. When I advised you that atheism and theism's aggressive approaches to each other (in some circles) leads to a harm to society, you agreed with me. Open debate is very important. I had thought that you understood how important these beliefs are to people, and the effect of dismissing them in an offensive manner. If we are to talk of wrongs to society, I can see none so great as that of dividing people and silencing free debate. I am certain that the dismissal of someone’s most personal belief, whatever that might be, is bound in most cases to lead to offence, emotion, and later a stronger belief. If you see religion as a wrong to society, the best thing you can do is to calmly discuss it, and refrain from giving people an emotional reason to hang on to an idea which they might have abandoned if they trusted you more. This is the reason why: the "kid gloves" are valuable by your own moral standard, and they serve your own ends. Reformed Nihilist wrote: That's really annoying! Do you suppose I walk up to people going into a church and say "Hey!. You're fucking retarded"? The reason I spoke so emphatically was because you were playing little pedantic word games, pretending that you didn't know what the word "lunatic" meant. It was also supposed to show that these beliefs aren't just "a little mistaken" (like thinking that chiropractors are a type of doctor), but entirely out to lunch (like thinking the moon landing was fake). I was pointing to the difference between being honestly (or even dishonestly) mistaken and being unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between reality and fiction or fantasy. If someone believes something, then they believe it to be reality. That is the nature of belief. I cannot by my own violation chose to believe that London is in Scotland - it is beyond the reach of what I can chose to do. The only way to change someone’s dearly held belief is by reason, not by force, not by insults, not by changes in the law. phrases you continue to come out with are attacking the ideas; this I understand. The trouble is that by attacking these ideas with mere names, you do not do any act of reasoning with the theists, the spiritualist. By mere name calling you can make a person angry - and humans do not reason well when they are angry. It is far better to show that the belief is irrational, patiently - any other type of discourse fans the flames. If we were to all keep in mind that the people we are speaking to do truly believe what they say they believe, and are not just saying things to irritate us, perhaps we would not be so entrenched in our views. Reformed Nihilist wrote: What's a non-literal belief? I think it's a good idea to be nice as a rule, but I wouldn't call that a non-literal belief in Mary Poppins. I interpret Mary Poppins as a peice of literature and could find some of the "morals of the story" to be useful (if a little milktoast). Are you really suggesting that this is practicing the religion of Mary Poppins? Religion involves (in general), more than just commentary on the positive possible interpretations of a piece of literature. Having separated literal believers from the non literal, you now seek to dismiss the non literal? If a person believes in something they call god, but does not follow any particular religious text at all, do they class as a literal believer in your eyes? is this person an atheist? I would refer to them as a non-literal believer - as far as knowledge of god goes they admit to having none (they are agnostic) in so far as belief goes they have some (they are a theist). This person is an agnostic theist/a non literal believer. Do you think such a person is lunatic in their beliefs? Reformed Nihilist wrote: I agree if "knowledge" is defined narrowly or "God" is define so broadly as to be nonsennsical, but in the ordinary sense of "knowing" (witho0ut applying an unreasonable skepticism), these are completely knowable questions. This is where all the "orbiting teapot" and FSM arguments come in. They are meant to show that one cannot reasonably be agnotic about some propositions, even if they technically could be true and may or may no by definition be unknowable. one day I am going to launch a teapot in to space, It would give me a great deal of pleasure. Until that day I will continue to be your "non-existent" teapot atheist, because I have never been fond of claiming to know what I don’t. This "narrow" definition of knowledge is of course used to mean: that which we can know beyond reasonable doubt. It remains possible that something resembling a teapot will one day be found orbiting somewhere, perhaps an odd shaped fragment of a comet, perhaps a piece of discarded space junk - perhaps it will make headlines. Of course we do not generally need to know things beyond reasonable doubt, we can instead count as knowledge "that which we believe we know". The theist believes one thing, and you believe another. In this second sense neither of you is "more right". How would you define knowledge? (I would imagine you don’t want to play semantic word games, unfortunately philosophy is one big semantic word game so here we are). Reformed Nihilist wrote: Anyone who doesn't think they could possibly be wrong is a fool, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You seem to once again mistake firm belief with a closed mind, which is a fallacy, and one I think has led you down the garden path. This is an interesting point - the contention that a closed mind is equated with a firm belief. To be honest, I would argue that a firm belief necessitates a closed mind as to the opposite belief to itself - as one can only believe to be true what one is certain is true. One can of course admit that there is room for error - but what you believe is a fact to you which is decided after weighing all of the evidence you have come in to contact with. To me it seems that if cone has a firmly held belief in the existence of the spiritual (or anything which corresponds to it) then they will by necessity have a closed mind to the possibility that they might be wrong. If they take an initial position of agnosticism, they will perhaps have a modestly held belief, which is subject to questioning. If you hold such a belief in the non-existence of god, then your belief is justified for yourself, and I apologise for the closed minded comment. Reformed Nihilist wrote: Not knowing what the word "God" means is not agnostacism, it is illiteracy. Hehe, Nice. I've been called worse. Reformed Nihilist wrote: me wrote: I by no means take a literal view on any religious text, but I still have no need or desire to believe that nothing exists which might correspond to what we call god. I don’t see the rush to chose, when we clearly don’t really even know what were talking about. I would suggest that if one starts the debate by showing that agnosticism is the only rational position for either theist or atheist, then it is much harder to show that one must either believe or disbelieve. I remain ignostic: I'm not sure what the question refers to. I cont really say if I believe or not, because I don’t know what were talking about. Whatever. It seems pretty clear to most people what we are talking about, but if you want to pretend that the years of tradition and thousands of pages written and the common daily usage behind the word "God" don't go to any length to make the word meaningful or understandable, I would suggest imaginiing what it would require to make a word meaningful. If you imagine a word can and should have one unequivocable and unambiguous meaning before any discussion can possibly occur concerning it, then I don't see how you could ever discuss anything. Another two good points. I will answer each separately if I may: 1)why is it not clear what the word god means? It seems that the more a word is used, the greater its application becomes, and eventually by the diversity of its meanings the word means nothing. I mean it means nothing in particular, as it's meanings are complex, uncharted, manifold. In this sense the word god is one of the worst offenders - It not only means many things to many people at the same time (we could find these definitions in a dictionary): It also means many different things to almost everyone who knows the word. As evidence of this one only has to ask "what does god mean to you?" to any theist, and you will (in a sufficiently open environment) get an answer which differs from many, if not most other descriptions of "god". 2)Does a word have to have one unequivocal and unambiguous meaning before any discussion can possibly occur concerning it? I would say no, not at all, though it does depend on what we are discussing about the word. If we take the example of "god", we might discuss what we mean by it, and have no workable definition to start with. If we are discussing the possible existence of something, then we do need to know exactly what we are talking about. I might mock a person, saying something like "the chip and dales have ceased to exist, therefore you will not have them at your party" - only to be rather miffed when the person I talked to hires some nice chip and dale furniture for the occasion. Think Macbeth and the prophecy of the three old hags if you need further examples. If we are unsure of what we are speaking of (and in terms of god, we are), and if we wish to discuss the non existence of this same something, we must disambiguate what it is we are talking about before we can make an intelligent comment. Still, what would I know - I’m just hacking away at this keyboard really. I guess I should have learned to read and write before I used this internet thingy. Hope this post sheds some light RN, It’s been a pleasure as always. Cheers

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 691

Posted 07/02/08 - 03:01 PM:	#203
Kwalish Kid wrote: It is a belief that a religious person claims to be immune from specificity in order to shield it from scrutiny but that this same person will claim to be exactly specific when trying to justify their own, otherwise abhorrent, actions. I rather meant the opposite. It is a belief which should be open to scrutiny, including the possible objection that it might be false. P.S.. Oh, and I thought It was quite clear that I’m not religious... ..Though we might currently be in the process of deciding that. Please, if you define religious I will attempt to see if i fit the definition. Cheers! Edited by Makarismos on 07/02/08 - 03:14 PM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.