Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[fls]

Whereas I am uncomfortable concluding that no gods exist when some definitions are clearly not determinable at this point and it seems a very reasonable conclusion to me that such knowledge will not be forthcoming in my lifetime. To each their own.

Exactly. You seem comfortable concluding that determinable gods don't exist (in reference to your statement that "[o]ther definitions of god are easily shown to be inconsistent and therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude those gods don't exist"), and it seems reasonable to guess that you would continue to have confidence in whatever process allowed you to make that call in regards to those gods when it comes to future determinable gods, yet you say that you do not.

I don't find pantheism a redundant description because most definitions of 'universe' do not include 'consciousness' as an assumed charactoristic. But perhaps you were thinking of a different word it was redundant with.

Redundant in the sense of "superfluous, exceeding what is necessary."

Sorry, I don't follow this. What word/phrase do you think is a useless qualifier and what term is it qualifying.

Gnostic/agnostic and atheist.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Exactly. You seem comfortable concluding that determinable gods don't exist (in reference to your statement that "[o]ther definitions of god are easily shown to be inconsistent and therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude those gods don't exist"), and it seems reasonable to guess that you would continue to have confidence in whatever process allowed you to make that call in regards to those gods when it comes to future determinable gods, yet you say that you do not.

Yes, I simply recognize that there are current and future definitions of god that are not determinable, just as their are mathematical statements that are not determinable.

Redundant in the sense of "superfluous, exceeding what is necessary."

Ah, I see your meaning now. Thanks.

Gnostic/agnostic and atheist.

Linda

This I must disagree on, just as I disagree that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Since an individual can be an agnostic or gnostic theist rather than an agnostic or gnostic atheist, I don't consider it to be a useless qualifier at all. I can appreciate that according to other definitions of those terms it would seem rather useless. However, given that different definitions exist, it makes more sense to me to inquire how some one is using the terms rather than assuming they are redundant. People who use both terms together are generally indicating that they hold rather less certainty regarding the non-existance of god/s than those who use the term atheist alone whereas those who use agnostic alone are, IMO, usually indicating even less certainty, to the point of being actual fence-sitters without a strong inclination one way or the other.

 

[The Atheist]

Many Atheists claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

No, you have that wrong. What opponents of ID usually claim is that ideas and theories put forward by ID proponents are nonsensical loads of ridiculous pseudoscience masquerading as evidence and not worth using as toilet paper.

See, it's very simple - given that the evidence for ID is nil, it can only start with an a priori assumption that the universe/world/life is intelligently designed and isn't therefore worth bothering with.

When someone actually comes up with some evidence of ID, we'll debate it.

I believe the RCC has had someone looking for evidence of ID for quite some time. How's that working out so far? Herr RatZZinger due to make an ex cathedra comment on it yet?

Proof? Listen to your vaunted physicists with their uncertainties concerning the pre-Big Bang scenario and their speculations about multiple universes and type one and type two dimensions they might contain and the beings and creatures that these might in turn hold.

Of all possible theistic vs atheistic arguments, this is probably my favourite.

"Scientists don't know what happened 16 billion years ago."

Wow. In all that enormous wealth of real data we have amassed over thousands of years, the best attack you have is that our physicists have no idea about something which happened an immeasurable number of kilometres away and ~16,000,000,000 years ago.

I am off to church, you have convinced the hell out of me!

 

[fls]

Yes, I simply recognize that there are current and future definitions of god that are not determinable, just as their are mathematical statements that are not determinable.

It was my understanding that there are mathematical statements that are not determinable within a complete system, not that there are indeterminable statements. Maybe I need an example of what you mean.

This I must disagree on, just as I disagree that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Since an individual can be an agnostic or gnostic theist rather than an agnostic or gnostic atheist, I don't consider it to be a useless qualifier at all. I can appreciate that according to other definitions of those terms it would seem rather useless. However, given that different definitions exist, it makes more sense to me to inquire how some one is using the terms rather than assuming they are redundant. People who use both terms together are generally indicating that they hold rather less certainty regarding the non-existance of god/s than those who use the term atheist alone whereas those who use agnostic alone are, IMO, usually indicating even less certainty, to the point of being actual fence-sitters without a strong inclination one way or the other.

I'm simply pointing out that I cannot find a point where we differ. If I try to make statements about certainty and uncertainty or knowledge that are different than mine, you deny them. Everyone seems confident that they have a way to consider agnosticism or atheism in a way that distinguishes their own views from those of others, yet an actual description of those views shows them to be pretty much the same. People go on about certainty or the ability to know something about the unknown, yet people's certainty about particular gods and uncertainty about others seems to be identical. The only real difference that I can see is that some people use agnosticism to make overly bold statements about the limits of our knowledge. But I suspect even that is a false-front.

If you can discover a way in which my views differ from yours (something not too trivial, though ), then I will be happy to give you your 'agnoticism'.

Linda

 

[Roadtoad]

Just tossing this into the mix:

Assuming there is a God, is it even appropriate to assume that prayer has any value at all? Isn't it pretty arrogant of a pissant collection of created entities to expect the world at large to be subdued to the will of one selfish "believer," all in the name of Faith? Would this not contribute to a view that God is either absent, non-existent, or uncaring?

 

[Beth]

It was my understanding that there are mathematical statements that are not determinable within a complete system, not that there are indeterminable statements. Maybe I need an example of what you mean.

That's what I was referring to. If we consider our universe to be a complete system (I'm not sure whether it is or not, but I think the mathematics underlying the current physical models makes that assumption) then it's reasonable to suppose there are indeterminable facts about our universe. The existance or not of a creator god strikes me as a leading contender for such an indeterminable statement.

I'm simply pointing out that I cannot find a point where we differ. If I try to make statements about certainty and uncertainty or knowledge that are different than mine, you deny them. Everyone seems confident that they have a way to consider agnosticism or atheism in a way that distinguishes their own views from those of others, yet an actual description of those views shows them to be pretty much the same. People go on about certainty or the ability to know something about the unknown, yet people's certainty about particular gods and uncertainty about others seems to be identical. The only real difference that I can see is that some people use agnosticism to make overly bold statements about the limits of our knowledge. But I suspect even that is a false-front.

If you can discover a way in which my views differ from yours (something not too trivial, though ), then I will be happy to give you your 'agnoticism'.

Linda

Not all uncertainties are equal. While nearly all atheists will admit to harboring, at the very least, some sufficiently small uncertainty about the existance of any god, I think agnostics generally give the various probabilities significantly different weights.

I consider certain definitions of god, such as the non-intervening creator god and the pantheistic god as the totallity of the universe which has a consciousness of it's own to be completely indeterminable for us and as such, lacking other, more conclusive information, I rate the possibilities of existance and non-existance of those gods as equal. I gather you do not, so I think that would be a difference between our beliefs.

I also suspect that I consider the possibility of the existance of more traditional gods to have a considerably higher probability than you do, primarily because I think it possible that the near universal tradition of belief in a creator god might rest as easily on similar experiences as they do on similar needs that the various mythologies attempt to fill. I see it as possible that different human societies had different names for the same spiritual being(s) rather than each different belief system representing a unique mythological character(s). Sort of like different ancient tribes likely had different names for the various species of animals they typically encountered, but those different names might represent real types of animals rather than mythological ones.

 

[Kil]

People who use both terms together are generally indicating that they hold rather less certainty regarding the non-existance of god/s than those who use the term atheist alone whereas those who use agnostic alone are, IMO, usually indicating even less certainty, to the point of being actual fence-sitters without a strong inclination one way or the other.

I don’t speak for other people. I do often use both terms together, but not always.

I leave every door open just enough to allow for the consideration of new evidence. With regard to the god question, and really all that may exist outside of the realm in which I reside, I admit to a having no knowledge. Of course, I strongly doubt the existence of those other realms based on a lack of evidence to support the existence of that which is outside of nature. It’s because of my doubt that that I call myself agnostic, especially on the god question because that is where it usually comes up. Skepticism more precisely describes my approach to supernatural claims in general.

I know that many who identify as atheist take precisely the same position as I do with regard to the consideration of supernatural claims. As a skeptic, I default to doubt where evidence is lacking or of very poor quality.

I’m an atheist because I am not a theist. It’s as simple as that. After calling myself agnostic, to me, it’s redundant to add atheist as an identifier. I do it for people who, for some reason, probably for the sake of debates like this one, miss that I am a skeptic first.

One thing I am not is a fence sitter. Like all of the agnostics that I know, who also identify as skeptics, I choose to identify as agnostic on the question of god, because from a critical thinking standpoint, it best describes who I am and why I am a skeptical, at least in my approach to supernatural claims.

Come to think of it, because not all atheists and agnostics default to critical thinking, perhaps it would be best to simply identify as a skeptic, if that is what you are, and leave it at that…

 

[The Atheist]

Just tossing this into the mix:

Assuming there is a God, is it even appropriate to assume that prayer has any value at all? Isn't it pretty arrogant of a pissant collection of created entities to expect the world at large to be subdued to the will of one selfish "believer," all in the name of Faith? Would this not contribute to a view that God is either absent, non-existent, or uncaring?

Haha! I used that same principle the other day.

A christian was giving me a delightful anecdote about how some preacher was awarding bags of lollies as prizes to some kids for being especially goody-goody when he noticed that there were nowhere near enough to go around the number of kids. Panic! Never mind, there's nothing he can do now, so he steps up, does his sermon and then starts to hand out bags of lollies.

Even though there are far more kids than he had bags of lollies for, he never emptied the bag and every kid is holding their lollies! God works in mysterious ways!11!!

I just came back with "If god is quite able to feed lollies to a bunch of spotty, fat schoolchildren while other kids die screaming from hunger, then your god can get ****ed."

 

[fls]

That's what I was referring to. If we consider our universe to be a complete system (I'm not sure whether it is or not, but I think the mathematics underlying the current physical models makes that assumption) then it's reasonable to suppose there are indeterminable facts about our universe. The existance or not of a creator god strikes me as a leading contender for such an indeterminable statement.

Really? I've always had the impression that mathematics cares little for egocentric human endeavours.

Not all uncertainties are equal. While nearly all atheists will admit to harboring, at the very least, some sufficiently small uncertainty about the existance of any god, I think agnostics generally give the various probabilities significantly different weights.

I consider certain definitions of god, such as the non-intervening creator god and the pantheistic god as the totallity of the universe which has a consciousness of it's own to be completely indeterminable for us and as such, lacking other, more conclusive information, I rate the possibilities of existance and non-existance of those gods as equal. I gather you do not, so I think that would be a difference between our beliefs.

I also suspect that I consider the possibility of the existance of more traditional gods to have a considerably higher probability than you do, primarily because I think it possible that the near universal tradition of belief in a creator god might rest as easily on similar experiences as they do on similar needs that the various mythologies attempt to fill. I see it as possible that different human societies had different names for the same spiritual being(s) rather than each different belief system representing a unique mythological character(s). Sort of like different ancient tribes likely had different names for the various species of animals they typically encountered, but those different names might represent real types of animals rather than mythological ones.

It sounds like you consider various ideas to the extent that they are not excluded by the evidence. I haven't really seen you suggest things that are already excluded, so I'm not sure that we'd really differ all that much on residual probabilities. If you're suggesting that we differ on which of the various remaining possibilities are our favourites, you're probably right. But how could that be turned into a category difference?

Linda

 

[Roadtoad]

Haha! I used that same principle the other day.

A christian was giving me a delightful anecdote about how some preacher was awarding bags of lollies as prizes to some kids for being especially goody-goody when he noticed that there were nowhere near enough to go around the number of kids. Panic! Never mind, there's nothing he can do now, so he steps up, does his sermon and then starts to hand out bags of lollies.

Even though there are far more kids than he had bags of lollies for, he never emptied the bag and every kid is holding their lollies! God works in mysterious ways!11!!

I just came back with "If god is quite able to feed lollies to a bunch of spotty, fat schoolchildren while other kids die screaming from hunger, then your god can get ****ed."

Thank you, Sir! I think you've summed up my own disgust with the whole business.

 

[Beth]

Really? I've always had the impression that mathematics cares little for egocentric human endeavours.

Yes, it's true that mathematics isn't one of the more caring philosophies.

It sounds like you consider various ideas to the extent that they are not excluded by the evidence.

Yes, though we may differ on what possibilities we consider to be excluded by the evidence.

I haven't really seen you suggest things that are already excluded, so I'm not sure that we'd really differ all that much on residual probabilities. If you're suggesting that we differ on which of the various remaining possibilities are our favourites, you're probably right. But how could that be turned into a category difference?

I can't say whether we'd differ on what you call teh 'residual' probabilities as you haven't given much indication of your thoughts regarding such definitions of god other than you seem to feel they are unnecessary. As far as a category difference, I don't know. It would depends on how the categories are defined I suppose. Some people tell me I must be an atheist since I consider belief to be far too strong a word for my feelings regarding the existance or non-existance of any god. Other people tell me I must be a theist because I'm usually arguing that POV on this newsgroup. [What can I say, I enjoy playing Devil's, er God's, advocate here.] Myself, I've claimed to be a devout agnostic ever since I first discovered the term back in my freshman year of college. It seemed to exactly fit my strong feeling of doubts regarding both the existance and non-existance of god. Few people who describe themselves as atheist seem to share my strong doubts regarding the non-existance of god. Instead, they usually weight their uncertainty as low and give the probability of any god existing as not significantly different from zero in their estimation.

 

[fls]

I can't say whether we'd differ on what you call teh 'residual' probabilities as you haven't given much indication of your thoughts regarding such definitions of god other than you seem to feel they are unnecessary.

I guess it depends upon whether or not you're talking about trying to come up with some over-arching meaning that isn't excluded by our current understanding, such as a first cause or pantheism. In that case, how does one go about assigning probabilities to various indistinguishable ideas? If you're talking about alternate explanations for various observations, I suppose one could assign probabilities to things like 'visitations from aliens'.

As far as a category difference, I don't know. It would depends on how the categories are defined I suppose. Some people tell me I must be an atheist since I consider belief to be far too strong a word for my feelings regarding the existance or non-existance of any god. Other people tell me I must be a theist because I'm usually arguing that POV on this newsgroup. [What can I say, I enjoy playing Devil's, er God's, advocate here.] Myself, I've claimed to be a devout agnostic ever since I first discovered the term back in my freshman year of college. It seemed to exactly fit my strong feeling of doubts regarding both the existance and non-existance of god. Few people who describe themselves as atheist seem to share my strong doubts regarding the non-existance of god. Instead, they usually weight their uncertainty as low and give the probability of any god existing as not significantly different from zero in their estimation.

I think deep down I can't believe in something someone else came up with. And if I come up with something, I already know that I just made it up. I think that's why principles discovered through science, like symmetry, are so appealing to me. I can trust that they aren't arbitrary.

Linda

 

[zaphod2016]

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that.

I see two other options:

1. God is some form of "placebo effect" and is somehow affecting the physical world because people believe in him. (i.e. Santa Clause makes children happy, and inspires genrousity. Even though he doesn't exist in any physical sense, I could argue that "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".)

2. As Dawkins described: "the God of the gaps" theory, where God is eternally shrinking as knowledge expands (a view supported by KJV Genesis IMO)

If the question is: "do you believe in God?" my answer is "no", and so I am an "atheist"

If the question is: "do you believe God does not exist?" my answer is also "no", and so I am a "fence-sitting weasel". In my own defense, according to scripture I'm going to hell either way, so it's not as if I'm "hedging my bets"- I am simply being intellectually honest with myself.

I'm not sure its a binary switch. It stinks to me of a false dichotomy.

 

[Beth]

I guess it depends upon whether or not you're talking about trying to come up with some over-arching meaning that isn't excluded by our current understanding, such as a first cause or pantheism. In that case, how does one go about assigning probabilities to various indistinguishable ideas?

Indistinguishable ideas? I'll interpret this to mean ideas which are distinguishable via the evidence we currently have. The general practice is to assign equal probability to the possible outcomes, which makes agnosticism a very rational choice for those types of conjectures.

I think deep down I can't believe in something someone else came up with. And if I come up with something, I already know that I just made it up. I think that's why principles discovered through science, like symmetry, are so appealing to me. I can trust that they aren't arbitrary.
Linda

I'll presume you are aware that science was made up by other humans.
Darwin devised the theory of evolution. Einstein came up the theory of general relativity. I suspect that your issue with non-scientific endeavors isn't that they were created or discovered by other human beings. Perhaps something along the lines of the inability of non-scientific endeavors to be able to be indepedently verified by others.

 

[arthwollipot]

What's kind of fun about these threads is that we divide ourselves up into these various camps when it comes to how we want to describe our beliefs, but we all seem to have almost identical beliefs.

Kinda reminds you of religion, huh?

 

[phantomb]

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that.

I see two other options:

1. God is some form of "placebo effect" and is somehow affecting the physical world because people believe in him. (i.e. Santa Clause makes children happy, and inspires genrousity. Even though he doesn't exist in any physical sense, I could argue that "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".)

If god is some form of "placebo effect" then god does not exist. Do I really have to change it again to read "There are two possible claims one can make regarding the physical existence of a god at the moment" to avoid this semantic game?

2. As Dawkins described: "the God of the gaps" theory, where God is eternally shrinking as knowledge expands (a view supported by KJV Genesis IMO)

So either the god actually is filling at least one of those gaps, in which case the god exists, or the god actually isn't filling any of those gaps, in which case the god does not exist.

If the question is: "do you believe in God?" my answer is "no", and so I am an "atheist"

If the question is: "do you believe God does not exist?" my answer is also "no", and so I am a "fence-sitting weasel". In my own defense, according to scripture I'm going to hell either way, so it's not as if I'm "hedging my bets"- I am simply being intellectually honest with myself.

I'm not sure its a binary switch. It stinks to me of a false dichotomy.

Likewise, it looks to me like you are intentionally playing semantic games in order to interpret my statement in such a way so as to avoid a dichotomy.

 

[Radrook]

I find the atheistic stance far more rational than this stance which of necessity requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of and relationships between belief, certainty (including it's fundamental relevance), belief revision, and possibility.

How am I misunderstanding the nature of and the relationship between belief and certainty?

 

[fls]

Indistinguishable ideas? I'll interpret this to mean ideas which are distinguishable via the evidence we currently have. The general practice is to assign equal probability to the possible outcomes, which makes agnosticism a very rational choice for those types of conjectures.

I suppose it makes sense if you've never heard of Fisher...

You can hardly pretend that the sample space is well-defined.

Linda

 

[Radrook]

Actually, it's not. This thread is about terminology, specifically what claims are communicated by the terms "atheist" and "agnostic."

And I assumed that the atheist claim is certainty that there is no God.

I should have qualified my statement by saying that some atheists are semi atheists hovering in the never-never land between atheist and agnostic and that my opinion only was to be applied to those who claim absolute certainty. Of course I was guided by my penchant for considering people who ridicule the ID idea as claiming certainty. Otherwise, why would they ridicule? But considering the human penchant and predisposition for semantic vagueness as a patina for profundity I guess I might have jumped the gun.

Very very few claim certainty, in my experience, assuming you mean absolute certainty without possibility of error. And I am not one of them, so I'm snipping most of your "god of the gaps" crap as irrelevant.

Does gloating and ridiculing those who postulate an ID indicate certainty? Perhaps I take it to indicate certainty since that's what it conveys.


BTW
Your response about doctors family and all the other balogna you mentioned to my original post I found irrelevant and unintelligible. Thought about asking for a clarification but let it go.


snip

Sort of like how one cannot but marvel at the inconsistency and hubris of those who claim not only to know that there is a creator of the universe, but to know what he wants?

Well, sorry but I find the atheistic stance far more worthy of marveling at. Similar to a perverse convenient sort of self-inflicted blindness.

 

[Beth]

I suppose it makes sense if you've never heard of Fisher...

You can hardly pretend that the sample space is well-defined.

Linda

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by this. What theorems of Fisher are you thinking of? I think the sample space can easily be defined into a binary set of outcomes. A non-interventionist intelligent creator god exists outside of our universe or doesn't. That's a pretty well defined sample space. The universe is a conscious entity or it isn't. That too is a pretty well defined sample space.