We are all agnostic

[bokonon]

I'm indifferent on whether or not you believe in any god....how do you describe me?...Not that I care...

Apatheist.

 

[wollery]

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand. When someone says that they are an atheist, why do you assume that they are excluding all possible definitions of god?

Linda

No seriously.

What definition of atheist are you using?

 

[fls]

What is the problem with accepting agnosticism as a middle ground between atheism and belief in some sort of god? Many people change their positions regarding theistic beliefs over the course of their lives, some more than once, some of them are going to move through the position of uncertainty during that process. Others are permanently stuck on the fence, unable to come to any conclusion they feel strongly about. This is a fairly common usage of the word agnostic in our culture. What's the problem with using it to mean that?

I'm not opposed to that use, but as these endless discussions demonstrate, it doesn't seem to communicate useful information. If you tell me you are an agnostic, I have no idea whether or not you believe in some sort of god and how certain you are in your belief. And before you claim that agnosticism means uncertainty by default, I point you to Wollery and DogDoctor as examples to the contrary.

It seems to me that the use of 'theism' and 'atheism' modified by 'un/certainty' allows you to convey information in a way that is useful. That leaves the use of agnosticism free to fill a social use (per Yoink), or for use as a technical term when discussing epistemology/ontology (per Wollery, I think).

LInda

 

[fls]

No seriously.

What definition of atheist are you using?

Seriously? Then how is your argument not simply a strawman?

Linda

 

[wollery]

Seriously? Then how is your argument not simply a strawman?

Linda

Which doesn't answer my question.

 

[fls]

Which doesn't answer my question.

No. But you didn't answer mine.

Thinking about this a bit more, it never occurred to me before that I actually had to say this. The statement "does not have a belief in god(s)", as far as I can tell, refers to those definitions of god(s) which necessitate some non-trivial degree of belief. For example, your 'possible god of future knowledge' doesn't necessitate any degree of belief, so it doesn't really seem to be excluded.

Linda

 

[wollery]

No. But you didn't answer mine.

Thinking about this a bit more, it never occurred to me before that I actually had to say this. The statement "does not have a belief in god(s)", as far as I can tell, refers to those definitions of god(s) which necessitate some non-trivial degree of belief. For example, your 'possible god of future knowledge' doesn't necessitate any degree of belief, so it doesn't really seem to be excluded.

Linda

Which is the very definition of an agnostic atheist that I've been using from the very start.

If you don't deny the possibility of some definition of god being true, then how are you not agnostic?

 

[bokonon]

As for a Deist god, it is my opinion this belief is just an attempt to move the goal post as god claims are knocked down as false one after the other. But using logic, one can also say that not only is such a god equally likely as the tooth fairy, by definition, there is no way for someone to become aware of a god which never interacts with the Universe. It would seem Deist believers conveniently forget this fact as they claim to believe in a God which merely created everything and sat back.

That isn't the only deist god available.

Two common characteristics attributed to god by many religions are "creator" and "sustainer" of the universe. If god is both creator and sustainer, its "sitting back" is an active process which permeates all of time and space. Such a god would not only be the spark behind the big bang, but the glue between the galaxies and the mysterious essence which keeps elementary particles bubbling in the quantum field.

I don't know if a concept of god along these lines could become popular enough to wean people away from the dogma they've been raised on, but it's a dream of mine. More rational, but deep down, really just as magical.

 

[fls]

Which is the very definition of an agnostic atheist that I've been using from the very start.

If you don't deny the possibility of some definition of god being true, then how are you not agnostic?

It's just that that's the same thing as atheist, unless you assign atheism the ridiculous position of not believing in things that require no belief.

You can do that, if you want. But what's the point (not a rhetorical question)?

Linda

 

[Egg]

Often the entire line of evidence is ignored by skeptics making the agnostic argument, (they mostly haven't thought about it) and most certainly ignored by the majority of theists, (a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest).

Has it been ignored or have they just not found the evidence as compelling as you do? Hearing want you want to hear isn't just something that other people do.

The evidence is overwhelming if you look at the anthropological record and consider the psychology of magical beliefs. We have overwhelming evidence from both fields.

As I said. "overwhelming" is a subjective adjective. You may have found the evidence overwhelming, that doesn't mean that objectively it is.

In anthropology there is evidence that god beliefs arose from human endeavors to explain and control the world around them.

I can see how there might be evidence to suggest that that is a possible explanation. That people used god beliefs to try to explain and control the world isn't the same as how such beliefs arose. Evidence of religion dates back way before written record. What sort of evidence are you referring to that gives you such certainty?

We have evidence in psychology today that shows at least some of the mechanisms for why people believe weird things.

So that suggests it's a possibility that theists hold a mistaken belief, it doesn't necessarily suggest that they actually do.

Add to that the myriad of god beliefs theists have no doubt in dismissing as myth. These 'dismissed as mythical' beliefs have all the same themes as the god beliefs people maintain are real. You cannot explain away the phenomena by saying maybe they believe in the same god because these beliefs are incompatible with each other despite the same themes.

There could be several explanations here. There's the blind men describing an elephant analogy, people could be mistaken about particular attributes of god, interpreting the same phenomenom with a different cultural framework and/or some might well be myths.

And top that off with the fact there isn't a single credible bit of evidence any of these myths arose because people had real interactions with actual gods.

What sort of evidence should we expect to see, but don't?

For those of us who recognize one god myth is the same as the next, the evidence is overwhelming. For those who do not recognize their god myth is indeed a myth, they cannot see the reasoning.

...and finish with a nice fallacy that of course could just as easily be turned around to why you do see the reasoning and still be equally as fallacious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has it been ignored or have they just not found the evidence as compelling as you do? Hearing want you want to hear isn't just something that other people do.

Considering I am one of the few people who ever mentions this evidence and line of reasoning, I conclude it is ignored by skeptics. The typical agnostic claim is there is no evidence for gods. I rarely see it mentioned except in my posts that this neglects to account for the evidence god beliefs are based on imagination, and the lack of evidence god beliefs are based on encounters with real gods. The scientific principle is follow the evidence, not fit it to a preexisting conclusion.

As for the theists ignoring this evidence, how many theists recognize the double standard they apply to Zeus vs their own god beliefs? How many have you read posting about evidence god beliefs were the result of people's imaginations but they have evidence to the contrary?

I will say the anthropological discussion of the origin of god beliefs is discussed often. It just is rarely discussed as evidence against god beliefs in discussions about agnosticism vs atheism.

As I said. "overwhelming" is a subjective adjective. You may have found the evidence overwhelming, that doesn't mean that objectively it is.

I can see how there might be evidence to suggest that that is a possible explanation. That people used god beliefs to try to explain and control the world isn't the same as how such beliefs arose. Evidence of religion dates back way before written record. What sort of evidence are you referring to that gives you such certainty?

I find the evidence homeopathy is a crock, overwhelming. Who cares if a homeopathy believer disagrees? The evidence god beliefs were figments of people's imagination from the start is overwhelming. What evidence do you have that people ever had encounters with real gods? NONE! We even have the more recent Cargo cults^WP in which the development of god beliefs have been documented in historical times. How much more evidence do you want?

So that suggests it's a possibility that theists hold a mistaken belief, it doesn't necessarily suggest that they actually do.

There could be several explanations here. There's the blind men describing an elephant analogy, people could be mistaken about particular attributes of god, interpreting the same phenomenom with a different cultural framework and/or some might well be myths.
What sort of evidence should we expect to see, but don't?

For one, evidence that there are things in the Bible which cannot be explained except by the intervention of a god. But what do you see instead?

No evidence of god imparted knowledge of any awareness of the peoples in the rest of the world existed.
No evidence of god imparted knowledge of the germ theory of disease.
No evidence the Creation story is any more accurate than any other of the numerous creation myths found in cultures world wide.

The list is endless. Evidence found in religious historical texts of real encounters with actual gods: None.
Evidence people developed god beliefs in culture after culture as a natural process of explaining and controlling the natural world: Overwhelming.
The likelihood these beliefs are different interpretations of the same god encounters: Completely contradicted by the facts.

If you find the evidence for god beliefs compelling, you still cannot point to a single shred of evidence to base that on.

...and finish with a nice fallacy that of course could just as easily be turned around to why you do see the reasoning and still be equally as fallacious.

The scientific principle of following the evidence not fitting the evidence makes my reasoning well within the rules of logic and scientific method. Sorry, you can't equate evidence based beliefs with faith based beliefs.

 

[wollery]

Skeptigirl, you do make a logical error in your argument.

The leap from, "there is evidence that god beliefs are the result purely of people's imaginations" to the conclusion, "there is no god" is unwarranted.

That people belief things about god that are patently untrue does not mean that god does not exist. That conclusion simply does not follow.

 

[wollery]

It's just that that's the same thing as atheist, unless you assign atheism the ridiculous position of not believing in things that require no belief.

You can do that, if you want. But what's the point (not a rhetorical question)?

Linda

It's not the same as the hard atheist position, which refutes the possibility of any god existing. That's the position I'm arguing against, and it appears you agree with me.

As I said in the OP, I used to consider myself an atheist, albeit an agnostic one. Of course, that position has now changed to ignosticism, having read about it.

I agree that there's no point in believing in things that do not require belief, but there is a point in admitting to not having absolute knowledge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, you do make a logical error in your argument.

The leap from, "there is evidence that god beliefs are the result purely of people's imaginations" to the conclusion, "there is no god" is unwarranted.

That people belief things about god that are patently untrue does not mean that god does not exist. That conclusion simply does not follow.

Because god beliefs are so prevalent, people often fail to notice there is as much evidence for gods as there is for IPUs. There is an equal lack of evidence for either one.

Are your beliefs about IPUs really akin to your agnosticism about the potential for gods? How about Harry Potter? Are you uncertain about the claims of homeopathy? Have you disproved every single instance of a claim of water's memory?

Do you honestly believe you are not applying a double standard to god beliefs?


I am a more practical person. I don't have the door open to the possibility Hogwarts is a real place. Provide any evidence at all and I'll open the door. But in the absence of any evidence and no logic behind the hypothesis gods are possibly real, then empirically there is no reason one need entertain such fictions.


I realize many others have not come to the same conclusion as I have. That does not deter me because I do indeed have scientific principles underlying my conclusion.

I am following the evidence. You are establishing a pre-determined conclusion and looking for the evidence that might support that conclusion. Which of those is the correct scientific method?

Recognizing Zeus and Yahweh are equally mythical beings is what the evidence supports. Nothing supports an alternative conclusion some god beliefs are true while all the ones we've critically looked at have no supporting evidence behind them.

Do you deny there is evidence people fabricate god beliefs? Do you have any evidence of god beliefs which are not fabricated? Why are you applying a different standard to other woo claims than to god beliefs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I agree that there's no point in believing in things that do not require belief, but there is a point in admitting to not having absolute knowledge.

For all practical purposes I would bet you are not applying your absolute knowledge principle to many many things yet you apply it to god beliefs.

 

[wollery]

Because god beliefs are so prevalent, people often fail to notice there is as much evidence for gods as there is for IPUs. There is an equal lack of evidence for either one.

Are your beliefs about IPUs really akin to your agnosticism about the potential for gods? How about Harry Potter? Are you uncertain about the claims of homeopathy? Have you disproved every single instance of a claim of water's memory?

An animal which is both invisible and pink would contradict what we know about physics. Similarly, small children able to fly on an ordinary besom would contradict what we know about physics. These specific examples can therefore be discarded.

Equally, the biblical god, and the gods of the Greek, Norse and Roman pantheons can be disregarded.

What cannot be discarded, out of hand, is the possibility of a deist god, since such a god is, by definition, outside of the scope of human knowledge. Such a god is also a moot point, and discussion of whether or not it exists is a pointless exercise. That does not, however, negate the possibility.

Do you honestly believe you are not applying a double standard to god beliefs?

Do you not see the difference between discarding specific, precisely defined phenomena, such as the IPU, or Harry Potter, or Yawheh, and a general, poorly defined phenomenon, such as a deistic god?

I am a more practical person. I don't have the door open to the possibility Hogwarts is a real place.

Neither do I. Never said I did.

Provide any evidence at all and I'll open the door.

Your door is already open, by virtue of the fact that you've stated that you're willing to open it should evidence come to light.

But in the absence of any evidence and no logic behind the hypothesis gods are possibly real, then empirically there is no reason one need entertain such fictions.

I realize many others have not come to the same conclusion as I have. That does not deter me because I do indeed have scientific principles underlying my conclusion.

Except that your arguments show that your conclusion is not what you state it to be.

You deny any possibility that gods are real, and then say you're willing to consider the possibility should evidence arise. Which means that you don't deny the possibility, because if you did then your door would be locked and bolted.

I am following the evidence. You are establishing a pre-determined conclusion and looking for the evidence that might support that conclusion. Which of those is the correct scientific method?

Where did I say I was looking for evidence? That's about the 5th time in this thread that you've put words into my mouth. I don't believe that any god exists, I don't expect any evidence to ever be found, and I'm certainly not looking for any evidence.

Recognizing Zeus and Yahweh are equally mythical beings is what the evidence supports. Nothing supports an alternative conclusion some god beliefs are true while all the ones we've critically looked at have no supporting evidence behind them.

And yet, as you have stated, on more than one occasion, you are willing to open the door to new evidence.

I agree that Zeus and Yahweh are equally mythical. I never said anything different. In fact I've stipulated quite clearly in this thread that the Abrahamic god does not exist.

Do you deny there is evidence people fabricate god beliefs?

Not in the least.

Do you have any evidence of god beliefs which are not fabricated?

None at all.

Why are you applying a different standard to other woo claims than to god beliefs?

I'm not. Where a belief contradicts known science, or its own definitions, I state as much, and that applies to god theories as much as homoeopathy, the IPU or Harry Potter.

 

[wollery]

For all practical purposes I would bet you are not applying your absolute knowledge principle to many many things yet you apply it to god beliefs.

Really?

Tell you what, you give me an example of an area in my life where you suspect that I don't apply this principle, and we'll see.

 

[Vox Humana]

I agree that there's no point in believing in things that do not require belief, but there is a point in admitting to not having absolute knowledge.

But we can't have absolute knowledge of anything, can we? What can you say that you really know?

 

[fls]

It's not the same as the hard atheist position, which refutes the possibility of any god existing. That's the position I'm arguing against, and it appears you agree with me.

I don't think anyone holds that position. As I asked before, why assume hard or strong or whatever atheism addresses those things which it has not been asked to address.

I agree that there's no point in believing in things that do not require belief, but there is a point in admitting to not having absolute knowledge.

Right. But who is not doing that?

Linda

 

[wollery]

I don't think anyone holds that position. As I asked before, why assume hard or strong or whatever atheism addresses those things which it has not been asked to address.

Right. But who is not doing that?

Which is my entire argument in a nutshell!

Agnostics are often accused of "fluffy" fence-sitting in regards to the question of god's existence, when all they are doing is making a statement about the limits of their knowledge.