We are all agnostic

[fls]

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.

I think the accusation of "fluffy" is because you are making a distinction that doesn't seem to exist. If both atheists and agnostics are making the same statement about the limits of their knowledge, your choice to apply the label agnostic, on the basis of that statement, has nothing to do with a category difference and seems arbitrary. I don't know why you want to do this, but others who do the same thing do so because it serves a social function - a reason that some would characterize as "fluffy" in the sense that it is conciliatory.

As you pointed out, the differences don't lie in what we think we can and do know about god(s). This suggests that "agnostic" is being used to highlight some other difference - maybe a difference in how we want to be perceived.

Linda

 

[Dragoonster]

scratch what I asked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The Earth is a sphere. How do you know? Have you personally been in orbit where you could look at the planet and actually see?

What is the point of remaining uncertain about the reality around you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It depends how you interpret those limits of your knowledge. If you want to discuss scientific principles, that is one thing. If you think you need to carry that into some obsessive compulsive belief system where you allow every idiotic possibility from 'homeopathy may not really have been disproved' to 'Pokemon and Superman could be real beings', I see no reason science and critical thinking requires such nonsense.

I have no reason to consider we are all in the Matrix. I have no problem stating unequivocally comic book characters are not real. Taking a scientific principle to such a level reflects just as irrational thinking as does not basing beliefs on evidence.


I can distinguish between a holding a scientific principle and applying it irrationally.


I'll get back to post 136 later.

 

[wollery]

The Earth is a sphere. How do you know? Have you personally been in orbit where you could look at the planet and actually see?

I haven't been into orbit, but I have travelled extensively, and when you fly you can see the curvature of the Earth. I've also been to the Southern hemisphere, and watched the Sun go the "wrong" way across the sky. I've spent time at different latitudes and witnessed first hand the difference that that makes to the length of day at different times of the year. All of these things are extremely hard evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical.

What is the point of remaining uncertain about the reality around you?

I remain uncertain about things of which I am uncertain. What's the point in declaring certainty about things of which you are uncertain?

 

[wollery]

It depends how you interpret those limits of your knowledge. If you want to discuss scientific principles, that is one thing. If you think you need to carry that into some obsessive compulsive belief system where you allow every idiotic possibility from 'homeopathy may not really have been disproved' to 'Pokemon and Superman could be real beings', I see no reason science and critical thinking requires such nonsense.

Same poor analogies, over and over again. Homoeopathy has been disproved, by clinical trial after clinical trial, and by the fact that it contradicts reams of hard science. Pokemon would contradict what we know about the physical world, as would Superman.

Really, if you're going to offer such pathetic analogies, why even bother?

I have no reason to consider we are all in the Matrix. I have no problem stating unequivocally comic book characters are not real. Taking a scientific principle to such a level reflects just as irrational thinking as does not basing beliefs on evidence.

Neither do I. The matrix is a possibility, but an extremely unlikely one, and as far as my day to day life goes, I see no reason to doubt the world's existence, and comic book characters would contradict what we know about science.

I can distinguish between a holding a scientific principle and applying it irrationally.

Please, keep trying to show where I apply this principle irrationally. I'm enjoying pointing out the flaws in your analogies.

 

[Dragoonster]

It depends how you interpret those limits of your knowledge. If you want to discuss scientific principles, that is one thing. If you think you need to carry that into some obsessive compulsive belief system where you allow every idiotic possibility from 'homeopathy may not really have been disproved' to 'Pokemon and Superman could be real beings', I see no reason science and critical thinking requires such nonsense.

I have no reason to consider we are all in the Matrix. I have no problem stating unequivocally comic book characters are not real. Taking a scientific principle to such a level reflects just as irrational thinking as does not basing beliefs on evidence.

It doesn't seem he disagrees, if I'm reading him right.

The Matrix is a work of fiction and it's "ridiculous" to consider we're in the Matrix as the film lays out. The Bible is a work of fiction and it's "ridiculous" to consider we're in the world it lays out. But there are 3,000,000,000 more people who are telling us that the Bible is real than there are Matrix believers. We aren't treating theists differently than Matrixists argumentively; we'd evaluate new evidence as it comes in, and so far disagree that any is valid. We and you only treat them differently because they have massive adherents and we respond to whichever are claiming nonsense, both as a whole and piece-by-piece. If there were only a dozen theists on Earth I'd hardly ever even think about the issue.

I can distinguish between a holding a scientific principle and applying it irrationally.

It's not irrational to admit a slim possibility. If you've ever argued against a particular piece of "evidence" that a theist presents, you have indeed "entertained" theism, and quite properly so that you can refute it as it comes. You're either behaving as an agnostic, or are a hypocritical atheist (at least the kind of atheist you seem to believe yourself to be here).

The Earth is a sphere. How do you know? Have you personally been in orbit where you could look at the planet and actually see?

What is the point of remaining uncertain about the reality around you?

Many reasons. For one, because it allows you to admit that you're wrong. In your example, it would be admitting that the Earth isn't a sphere, it's an ellipsoid. And my admitting that I'm intentionally choosing a scientific definition of the Earth's shape and not a layman's in order to play "gotcha".

That's the point of being a skeptic, no matter if it's a skeptic of the obviously ridiculous, or one's own beliefs/claims.

I think the accusation of "fluffy" is because you are making a distinction that doesn't seem to exist. If both atheists and agnostics are making the same statement about the limits of their knowledge, your choice to apply the label agnostic, on the basis of that statement, has nothing to do with a category difference and seems arbitrary.

They don't seem to be. Someone who claims "I am certain that god(s) don't exist" is some type of an atheist. And an agnostic (or other type of atheist) wouldn't make that knowledge claim. So, there is a real difference.

"I'm certain that god exists"
"I'm certain that god doesn't exist"

Two extreme claims, neither backed by evidence. One is a type of theism, the other a type of atheism. So clearly there's room inbetween for less extreme positions. Would you call any position other than the two above "fluffy" fence-sitting?

 

[Dysphemist]

... Atheism is just as dogmatic as theism. Admit it, you're ignostic. And then never post in the religion and philosophy section again.

 

[fls]

They don't seem to be. Someone who claims "I am certain that god(s) don't exist" is some type of an atheist. And an agnostic (or other type of atheist) wouldn't make that knowledge claim. So, there is a real difference.

Can you be more specific? What knowledge claim do you think is being made by that statement?

The knowledge that god beliefs and myths don't necessarily depend upon actual interactions with gods?
The knowledge of the extent to which we understand the natural world and the laws of nature?
The knowledge of the inherent difficulty of proving a universal statement?
Or...?

Which of those claims would an agnostic not make?

"I'm certain that god exists"
"I'm certain that god doesn't exist"

Two extreme claims, neither backed by evidence. One is a type of theism, the other a type of atheism. So clearly there's room inbetween for less extreme positions. Would you call any position other than the two above "fluffy" fence-sitting?

The "fluffy fence-sitting" is not my claim. My claim (which Wollery also makes) is that "fluffy fence-sitting", as defined by the OP, seems to encompass everyone anyway. There doesn't seem to be anyone left over to occupy the second extreme position, making it pointless for us to worry about it.

Linda

 

[bokonon]

I've also been to the Southern hemisphere, and watched the Sun go the "wrong" way across the sky.

Don't want to derail, but I'm not following you here. Doesn't it still go east to west?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't been into orbit, but I have travelled extensively, and when you fly you can see the curvature of the Earth. I've also been to the Southern hemisphere, and watched the Sun go the "wrong" way across the sky. I've spent time at different latitudes and witnessed first hand the difference that that makes to the length of day at different times of the year. All of these things are extremely hard evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical.

I remain uncertain about things of which I am uncertain. What's the point in declaring certainty about things of which you are uncertain?

But I am certain god beliefs originated in human imagination. You just described an 'absolute truth' based on the evidence you have evaluated.

Where does it say in the book of rational thinking that only you can decide what is certain or what is hard evidence? I am fully convinced there is hard evidence of where god beliefs originated and there is zero evidence real gods had anything to do with god beliefs. That leaves as much evidence for real gods as there is for Pokemon.

Are you uncertain there is no Pokemon?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Same poor analogies, over and over again. Homoeopathy has been disproved, by clinical trial after clinical trial, and by the fact that it contradicts reams of hard science. Pokemon would contradict what we know about the physical world, as would Superman.

Really, if you're going to offer such pathetic analogies, why even bother?

Neither do I. The matrix is a possibility, but an extremely unlikely one, and as far as my day to day life goes, I see no reason to doubt the world's existence, and comic book characters would contradict what we know about science.

Please, keep trying to show where I apply this principle irrationally. I'm enjoying pointing out the flaws in your analogies.

You have only shown here that there are some things you think are well established. All you have in ignoring the analogies is a disagreement over how strong the evidence is. I have not said you are irrational for coming to a different conclusion about the strength of the evidence the source of god beliefs is purely from the human imagination.

What is irrational here is one, assuming you are the only person to decide what can and cannot be established with certainty. And two, starting with the conclusion, there are 'gods', when the evidence supports only the conclusion that there are 'god beliefs'.

Pondering the existence of gods and molecular memory in water is not irrational. At some point in that pondering you decided there was no evidence for the existence of molecular memory in water. And taking that further you determined there was evidence against that memory. I find the evidence for the origination of god beliefs being human imagination to be compelling and overwhelming. I find the myriad of god beliefs that have been disproved (answering prayer, controlling volcanic eruptions, flinging lightning bolts at people) to be sufficient to decide with certainly gods have been disproved just as you have decided that the tests for homeopathy have been sufficient to disprove it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... and comic book characters would contradict what we know about science....

And the existence of gods doesn't? Seriously?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... We and you only treat them differently because they have massive adherents and we respond to whichever are claiming nonsense, both as a whole and piece-by-piece. If there were only a dozen theists on Earth I'd hardly ever even think about the issue.

I don't treat either fiction differently. That's what I am trying to say. I recognize the double standard applied to ancient god fictions vs modern fiction.

It's not irrational to admit a slim possibility. If you've ever argued against a particular piece of "evidence" that a theist presents, you have indeed "entertained" theism, and quite properly so that you can refute it as it comes. You're either behaving as an agnostic, or are a hypocritical atheist (at least the kind of atheist you seem to believe yourself to be here).

There is zero evidence for gods. Do you have any that contradicts that fact? You are claiming that because you can imagine it, there must be a slim possibility. JK Rowling imagined Harry Potter. Does that mean it is rational to admit a slim possibility Hogwarts really exists?

Many reasons. For one, because it allows you to admit that you're wrong. In your example, it would be admitting that the Earth isn't a sphere, it's an ellipsoid. And my admitting that I'm intentionally choosing a scientific definition of the Earth's shape and not a layman's in order to play "gotcha".

That's the point of being a skeptic, no matter if it's a skeptic of the obviously ridiculous, or one's own beliefs/claims.

What is it that elevates god fictions above Harry Potter fiction?

....Two extreme claims, neither backed by evidence. ....

Again, I remind you, there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are fictional creations. There is not equality here. Proving something exists for which there is zero evidence is what theists must do in a rational world. Disproving the existence of something for which there is no evidence of is not necessary in a rational world.

 

[Piscivore]

I have no problem stating unequivocally comic book characters are not real.

And, as usual with your grand pronouncements that seem to make sense, you are completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And, as usual with your grand pronouncements that seem to make sense, you are completely and utterly wrong.

It really doesn't add to a discussion to twist the meaning of post into something it was not. If you want to argue the pedantic importance of semantics you should consider a new thread.

 

[Piscivore]

It really doesn't add to a discussion to twist the meaning of post into something it was not. If you want to argue the pedantic importance of semantics you should consider a new thread.

The point is that your thinking with regards to gods reflects the same uninformed, fallacious conclusion jumping that you display here. All comic book characters are not the same, but you have no problems dismissing them as a class becuse you can disprove Superman.

You make the exact same error with gods.

And if you want to pretend that it's not relevant, maybe you should stop using irrelevant examples to illustrate your points. All god beliefs are not the same as Superman, Zeus, or Harry Potter, no matter how much simpler thinking so makes your world view.

 

[Pardalis]

The point is that your thinking with regards to gods reflects the same uninformed, fallacious conclusion jumping that you display here. All comic book characters are not the same, but you have no problems dismissing them as a class becuse you can disprove Superman.

You make the exact same error with gods.

And if you want to pretend that it's not relevant, maybe you should stop using irrelevant examples to illustrate your points. All god beliefs are not the same as Superman, Zeus, or Harry Potter, no matter how much simpler thinking so makes your world view.

The requirement for evidence is the same.

If there is no evidence then there is no reason to believe they exist. For biographical characters, then this means there is evidence these people existed. I don't see the relevance.

There are alot of Gods which have similarities between them, like old solar deities and the Christian god, which would seem to indicate a direct influence, a re-telling of the same stories but each time re-shaped in accordance to the times. Superman is just another Jesus story, but for the 1930's depression era (actually, he's more Moses than Jesus). He's just cooler looking. There is evidence that there is a human need to create for itself archetypes and mythologies. This should be a good indication that most ideas of god are man made, and fill a void.

Other ideas of god are philosophical in nature, and really can't be proven empirically.

 

[Piscivore]

Other ideas of god are philosophical in nature, and really can't be proven empirically.

Yet SG lumps them in with those she's elected " to decide with certainly gods have been disproved."

She does not seem able to comprehend the difference, just as her short-sightedness caused the error with the comic book characters.

 

[wollery]

Skeptigirl, you've completely missed the point.

There is a huge difference between "no evidence for" and "evidence against".

There is no evidence for the existence of god, but equally, there is no evidence against it.

Of course, that depends on your definition of god, and if you narrow your definition to the majority of anthropomorphic gods that the human imagination has dreamed up then you can say that there is evidence against those specific gods. I keep saying that, I agree with you on that point. However, there is the possibility that this Universe was created by some being that exists outside of our time-space continuum, and does not enter it or interfere with it in any way. It is, of course, utterly pointless to discuss such a being, since it would be beyond our ability to know, or understand.

However, there is evidence against homoeopathy, Harry Potter, and superheroes. It's called science. Unless everything we know about science is wrong, homoeopathy cannot work, and witches and superheroes cannot exist.

All of the analogies you keep offering are things which, by definition, must exist within our framework of physical laws. The same does not hold for all definitions of god.