We are all agnostic

[Dragoonster]

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

That god certainly doesn't exist.

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...?

No, not these. That god certainly doesn't exist.

Which of those claims would an agnostic not make?

That god certainly doesn't exist.

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

As I understood it, the OP was defining "fluffy fence-sitting" as that which extremists call nonextremists simply because they are not extremists, as an intellectual pejorative. His point was that we should (if we're rational) all be agnostics, if "agnosticism" is the term that describes the alternate choice between the polar extremes of certainty.

The additional point I'm trying to make even though I'm not doing it well, is that one doesn't need to hold a polar, 100% certain position in order to argue against a 100% certain position, or to argue the likelihood of that, or the likelihood of any position inbetween the two extremes.

So, yes, everyone should be fence-sitters, and argue about likelihoods rather than certainties. I don't see why this is untenable or undesirable.

 

[Dragoonster]

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?

Yes, it's rational to admit that possibility. And yes, if you can imagine ways it (or anything) would be possible, then it seems it would be possible. Admitting a slim possibility doesn't destroy all rational thought or overthrow the nature of evidence or science or philosophy. The rational tact is to admit the possibility but give it next to no credence. (just to avoid confusion in stance, I may disagree with Wollery here)

If we're absolutely 100% certain that Hogwarts or god doesn't exist, we'd ignore evidence, we wouldn't even bother looking at it, as we wouldn't need to. If someone creates a "Noah's Ark found, multiple pairs of animal skeletons on it, names inscribed within it match the Biblical account" thread (and lets say you're 100% certain Noah's Ark is myth), will you bother to look at it? If so, why? Why bother to refute or even look at evidence for something you know is 100% impossible?

The only reason I see, if you're absolutely certain the claim is rubbish, would be if your intent isn't to evaluate evidence but to dispute claims. An anti-theist, or anti-Arkist position, not a skeptical position.

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

Nothing rationally. Practically, just the sheer volumes of people pestering others with crappy "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.

It is completely necessary if one is to be 100% certain that that something is false, with no allowance for a slim possibility. I'm not the one claiming that, you (or if not you, strong atheists) are making that claim, so your beef is with yourself (or them).

 

[Macoy]

Well, as an agnostic, I didn't believe in god(s). As a reborn ignostic, I still do not believe in it (them).

For Beth, there was\is no uncertainty: I do not believe in god(s).

Inspired by Piscivore, I give you the dyslexic ignostic anthem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbLRf0j80wU

 

[fls]

Skeptigirl, you've completely missed the point.

Honestly, it looks like you and Skeptigirl are in agreement and that she is simply making the point that you go on to make yourself in this post. Except that she, like me, is also wondering why you are insisting there is disagreement.

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.

See?

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.

But we're not excluding this from your consideration. The only thing that excludes this possibility is this "strong atheist" you keep referring to that seems to be fictional, or at the very least, an essentially empty set.

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.

Exactly. Which is a key indicator that she is talking about "the majority of anthropomorphic gods that the human imagination has dreamed up", and not about "all definitions of god". Or to be more technical - those gods for which positive claims are made (or which necessitate belief, as I mentioned earlier).

The same does not hold for all definitions of god.

Exactly.

Linda

 

[fls]

That god certainly doesn't exist.

No, not these. That god certainly doesn't exist.

That god certainly doesn't exist.

Ah, problem solved, then. That kind of atheist doesn't seem to exist anyway.

As I understood it, the OP was defining "fluffy fence-sitting" as that which extremists call nonextremists simply because they are not extremists, as an intellectual pejorative. His point was that we should (if we're rational) all be agnostics, if "agnosticism" is the term that describes the alternate choice between the polar extremes of certainty.

Yes, he defined a rational point of view that is held by essentially all people (of those who have a horse in the race, anyway ). This solves the problem by eliminating the characteristic on which the extremists were defined.

The additional point I'm trying to make even though I'm not doing it well, is that one doesn't need to hold a polar, 100% certain position in order to argue against a 100% certain position, or to argue the likelihood of that, or the likelihood of any position inbetween the two extremes.

Yeah, I doubt you'd get any disagreement on that.

So, yes, everyone should be fence-sitters, and argue about likelihoods rather than certainties. I don't see why this is untenable or undesirable.

I doubt you'll get any disagreement on that, either.

Linda

 

[Dragoonster]

Ah, problem solved, then. That kind of atheist doesn't seem to exist anyway.

I used to be one. I didn't exist then? I was unique?

I may have been wrong, as well as ignorant, but that's the presumptive argument or goal--everyone rational should be an agnostic (agnostic meaning anything between strong theist and strong atheist, which I had thought were easily accepted as real extremes).

Yes, he defined a rational point of view that is held by essentially all people (of those who have a horse in the race, anyway ). This solves the problem by eliminating the characteristic on which the extremists were defined.

Before I delve into a thread like this again maybe I should first collect quotes saying "god certainly does not exist" from various forum members and sources. But I'm not sure if I'm completely missing the point, or if you're seriously saying that there are no humans, philosophical experiments, or self-described atheists who claim that they know god does not exist.

I recall your asking about the claim vs. the knowledge in an attempt to clarify; I didn't answer because I felt it was trivial and a "no true scotsman" fallacy. If an atheist exists who does put forth that 100% knowledge claim, i.e. no slim possibilities at all, then the OP's case is solid. They do exist.

I've gotta be missing something here.

 

[fls]

I used to be one. I didn't exist then? I was unique?

How can I address that since you refused to specify/clarify what you meant by certainty? It is my impression that atheists vary in the extent to which they feel comfortable making a statement that is perceived as definitive about belief, and that that is what people usually refer to when they say "strong atheist". You seemed to confirm that you were talking about the certainty of belief, rather than the certainty of knowledge. If you meant otherwise, why didn't you say so when given the opportunity?

I may have been wrong, as well as ignorant, but that's the presumptive argument or goal--everyone rational should be an agnostic (agnostic meaning anything between strong theist and strong atheist, which I had thought were easily accepted as real extremes).

I think there are real extremes on the basis of some characteristics, but that those characteristics were taken out of play in the OP.

Before I delve into a thread like this again maybe I should first collect quotes saying "god certainly does not exist" from various forum members and sources.

I wish someone would.

But I'm not sure if I'm completely missing the point, or if you're seriously saying that there are no humans, philosophical experiments, or self-described atheists who claim that they know god does not exist.

I don't know if there are any. I was hoping that someone would consider my words crazy enough that they would want to prove me wrong with an example, instead of merely repeating their claim without evidence.

As far as I can tell, atheists make the same claim that you and Wollery have made - that when it comes to specific gods about which specific claims have been made, the evidence shows that they don't exist. But when asked about god concepts which don't involve positive claims, they bring up the FSM or IPU, which indicates that they do recognize the kinds of information that one can or cannot make knowledge claims about.

If you have examples of atheists who do not use certainty to refer to belief (i.e. they are certain they have no belief) or whose certainty when it comes to knowledge does not parallel your own, please provide them. I'll certainly join your bandwagon in that fight.

I recall your asking about the claim vs. the knowledge in an attempt to clarify; I didn't answer because I felt it was trivial and a "no true scotsman" fallacy. If an atheist exists who does put forth that 100% knowledge claim, i.e. no slim possibilities at all, then the OP's case is solid. They do exist.

I've honestly given up advocating for a particular definition of atheist and agnostic. All I ask is that, in any particular discussion, some consistency is demonstrated so that it doesn't turn into merely an equivocation-fest.

Linda

 

[Dragoonster]

How can I address that since you refused to specify/clarify what you meant by certainty?

You asked what the knowledge claim was. I answered it was certainty that god doesn't exist. I didn't know that I was supposed to verify that "certainty" doesn't mean "less than certain".

Are we stuck on whether "claim" of knowledge or belief varies things? It doesn't, unless we're calling the atheist a liar. Otherwise it's assumed that someone who claims something is doing so honestly, and they truly believe or know what they say they believe or know.

It is my impression that atheists vary in the extent to which they feel comfortable making a statement that is perceived as definitive about belief, and that that is what people usually refer to when they say "strong atheist". You seemed to confirm that you were talking about the certainty of belief, rather than the certainty of knowledge. If you meant otherwise, why didn't you say so when given the opportunity?

What does it matter whether the atheist in question is talking about certainty or belief? Or belief of certainty or certainty of belief? The point is that atheists exist (or can exist) which do claim at least one of these or any further positions you'll raise in the future, and that atheist is the one you claim doesn't exist.

To answer, I view certainty as the same level of claim for both belief and knowledge. In neither case is a certain belief or certain knowledge at all disputable. It's 100% belief or 100% knowledge.

I don't know if there are any. I was hoping that someone would consider my words crazy enough that they would want to prove me wrong with an example, instead of merely repeating their claim without evidence.

I gave you an example in the post you just replied to. Not going to search for more now since we're arguing crossways, I'll try to collect some for a future time. I didn't realize until recently that it was incumbent to prove that atheists who claim certainty about god(s)' nonexistence exist. But again, I was one.

As far as I can tell, atheists make the same claim that you and Wollery have made - that when it comes to specific gods about which specific claims have been made, the evidence shows that they don't exist. But when asked about god concepts which don't involve positive claims, they bring up the FSM or IPU, which indicates that they do recognize the kinds of information that one can or cannot make knowledge claims about.

Wollery and I aren't arguing quite the same thing, I think. He does seem to treat them slightly differently, I don't, if I'm following him right.

If you have examples of atheists who do not use certainty to refer to belief (i.e. they are certain they have no belief) or whose certainty when it comes to knowledge does not parallel your own, please provide them. I'll certainly join your bandwagon in that fight.

heh

I've honestly given up advocating for a particular definition of atheist and agnostic. All I ask is that, in any particular discussion, some consistency is demonstrated so that it doesn't turn into merely an equivocation-fest.

Linda

The OP seemed clear and consistent to me. I tried to be clear and consistent twice in my definitions of the two extremes and that if we accept they exist, then there is (at least one) alternate position which doesn't advocate either extreme, which is called agnosticism. You disputed one of the extremes, claiming it doesn't exist. I'm a bit baffled by that.

Am I wrong even on this and you don't believe there are theists who claim certainty of god(s)' existence? How about just as a thought experiment, we both accept/assume that those two extremes are real. Would they both be irrational?

In any event I need a break, but thanks for the discourse.

 

[westprog]

I recall your asking about the claim vs. the knowledge in an attempt to clarify; I didn't answer because I felt it was trivial and a "no true scotsman" fallacy. If an atheist exists who does put forth that 100% knowledge claim, i.e. no slim possibilities at all, then the OP's case is solid. They do exist.

There's also the "God may exist, but his existence is so extremely improbable that we may safely discount the possibility" version, which is not quite 100% certainty, but is pretty close.

 

[Dragoonster]

There's also the "God may exist, but his existence is so extremely improbable that we may safely discount the possibility" version, which is not quite 100% certainty, but is pretty close.

One of my nitpicks is that I think it's unwise for atheists to not use qualifiers when engaging in formal debates with theists (or other atheists). The lack of "extremely" "highly" "almost" "virtually" "near" and the like can force pages upon pages of asides based on a misunderstanding of what the atheist actually is claiming. Then when/if the source of the confusion is found, the atheist loses points for a) being unclear initially and b) being seen as retroactively "revising" his claim.

Maybe the OP didn't use those and I substituted my own, so could see his point where it wasn't clear to others. Could still be doing that and not even realizing it. Sorry to fls or anyone if I have.

 

[fls]

You asked what the knowledge claim was. I answered it was certainty that god doesn't exist. I didn't know that I was supposed to verify that "certainty" doesn't mean "less than certain".

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. I meant that I asked you to clarify what your certainty was in reference to (at least, that was my intention). I then gave several examples of specific knowledge claims that atheists and agnostics make, and you denied that those were the claims you were referring to. At that point I couldn't tell whether you were referring to knowledge claims that I hadn't seen atheists make (i.e. that we can know something about things which are not relevant to our ability to know things) or belief claims that I hadn't seen atheists make (i.e. that we deny belief to those things which do not require belief).

Are we stuck on whether "claim" of knowledge or belief varies things? It doesn't, unless we're calling the atheist a liar. Otherwise it's assumed that someone who claims something is doing so honestly, and they truly believe or know what they say they believe or know.

I don't think we're stuck on that. It isn't my intention. That would be a good example of making a knowledge claim that is not relevant to our ability to know things, though (as an aside).

I gave you an example in the post you just replied to. Not going to search for more now since we're arguing crossways, I'll try to collect some for a future time. I didn't realize until recently that it was incumbent to prove that atheists who claim certainty about god(s)' nonexistence exist. But again, I was one.

Good, that's useful. So you are saying that at the time you would have argued vociferously that we know with certainty that the FSM, IPU and deist god (i.e. god as represented by the laws of nature) do not exist?

The OP seemed clear and consistent to me. I tried to be clear and consistent twice in my definitions of the two extremes and that if we accept they exist, then there is (at least one) alternate position which doesn't advocate either extreme, which is called agnosticism. You disputed one of the extremes, claiming it doesn't exist. I'm a bit baffled by that.

I agree that you both have been clear and consistent. I was puzzled by the need for the extreme, because I was not personally familiar with anyone that would fall into that category (i.e. it didn't seem to be a useful or necessary category). You have given yourself as an example (if your answer to the question above is 'yes') of the extreme. And that's fair, although I still don't have a sense of whether anyone else is an example. I just don't think that describing categories so that almost everyone falls into one category and a handful of people fall into the other is a useful way to communicate information. Under those circumstances, it makes more sense to me to do away with the categories and simply make note of the outliers.

Am I wrong even on this and you don't believe there are theists who claim certainty of god(s)' existence? How about just as a thought experiment, we both accept/assume that those two extremes are real. Would they both be irrational?

My argument all along has been about whether or not this is a useful exercise. I can accept that those two extremes are real, but if they don't really describe more than a handful of people (I can't speak to the theist end when it comes to how certain people feel in their beliefs), I can't see how it would be a useful way to communicate information. I realize that the point of this exercise was to get rid of the "fluffy, fence-sitter" accusation. And I think it serves that purpose well. But if the result is to remove any useful description of the varieties of human belief, by treating all variation as though it belongs in the same category, then we're back at square one when it comes to finding useful categories (or useful category descriptions).

In any event I need a break, but thanks for the discourse.

Okay.

Linda