Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[laca]

So how is strong atheism a matter of faith again?

Strong atheism is "I believe gods don't exist". Weak atheism is "I don't believe gods exist". That's why strong atheism is essentially a matter of faith, even though most of the times not nearly as blind/unfounded as strong theism.

 

[Piggy]

Strong atheism is "I believe gods don't exist". Weak atheism is "I don't believe gods exist". That's why strong atheism is essentially a matter of faith, even though most of the times not nearly as blind/unfounded as strong theism.

Non-sequitur. All you've said here is, "The claim that gods don't exist is essentially a matter of faith". You haven't provided a single reason for that claim.

You might as well say that it's a "matter of faith" that Chuck E. Cheese is a fictional character.

 

[wollery]

You are obviously aware of what you know. But you don't know for certain what I know. To claim, "you don't either" is to claim you know all the things I know and that's certainly uncertain.

I understand that lots of atheists (agnostic or other) may not have the same knowledge I have and therefore may have different tentative conclusions. Technically, all of our conclusions are tentative.

But I have a very high degree of certainty that gods are fictional human inventions. To claim I don't know is baloney IMO. I am very confident that I do know.

Please explain how you know that there is absolutely, definitely, no god of any description.

 

[Piggy]

In one sense, it can be the equivalent of supernatural—something beyond nature, beyond the physical that can be known. In philosophy, metaphysics is the study of what we know, contrasted with epistemology which study how we know.

But that's not what Dinwar has been saying, since s/he's been contrasting the question of God's existence (as metaphysical) with the question of bigfoot's existence (which supposedly isn't metaphysical) on the grounds that the existence of God has greater repercussions than the existence of bigfoot.

Yet even if you define metaphysics as the study of what we can and cannot know, rather than what we simply do or do not know, the question of God's existence is still not metaphysical, for the reasons I've outlined.

The question of the existence of God is a question about what is and isn't in our world, and the process of determining this is the same for God or bigfoot. Appeals to metaphysics are simply an attempt at special pleading.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You can't possibly know that all gods don't exist. Remember, we're talking about atheism in general, and not atheism wrt. one specific god.

Don't buy this argument. 'All Gods' is just a collection of the specific God hypotheses put forward by different groups. If I can dismiss them each individually I can dismiss the collection of them too. Now if you mean 'any possible God hypothesis' then its more difficult but people don't believe in 'any possible God' they believe in a specific God. At that point its just wordplay and irrelevant. Atheism isn't about disbelief in statistical probabilities or philosophical semantic arguments it is about disbelief in specific defined Gods.

Yes, agreed. However, I'll emphasize again, we're talking about atheism in general.

Yes, and atheism is disbelief in all known specific God hypotheses. If there is a new God hypothesis we can examine it and see if it is true. If it is, then we can believe it. If its not we can add it to the pot with the rest of them.

I do not need to believe that there is no creature that exists on the earth that I am not aware of to believe that a unicorn does not exist.

 

[Piggy]

I understand that. What I'm saying is that if gods exist, our entire view of the universe--EVERYTHING--requires a fundamental shift. Whether the universe will expand forever or not doesn't have any impact on whether or not the universe is rational and comprehendable; the existence of gods does.

One more point....

What you've failed to mention is the simple fact that our explorations of our universe, from the cosmic to the subatomic -- the same explorations that have knocked every single leg out of the ancient belief in gods -- have revealed that our universe is in fact rational and comprehensible.

Even at the quantum level, where predictions of single events are impossible, our universe behaves with stunning predictability over time.

 

[Piggy]

The agnostic label is merely there for intellectual honesty purposes: while we assess the probability for a god to exist to be so small as to treat it as 0, we allow for the theoretical possibility that evidence for/against a god would actually change said probability.

Intellectual honesty, or a philosophical fig leaf?

Do most folks who claim to be at 6.5 or 6.9 really believe that there's any chance that God exists?

I'm sure some of them do. People can talk themselves into just about anything.

But suppose there existed a perfect lie detector, one which (somehow) could actually reveal what we do and don't believe. And imagine you were hooked up to one, and that one of your children were tied to a chair and the guy reading the PLD had a gun to your kid's head and was going to fire it if the PLD indicated any untruth.

And suppose the question came up, "Do you believe that God might be real?"

I wonder how many of the 6.5ers, in that situation, would answer "yes".

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Intellectual honesty, or a philosophical fig leaf?

Bang on the money there. I like the expression philosophical fig leaf. That's exactly what it is.

Worse still, it doesn't reflect the reality of what people actually believe in. Nobody actually believes in a philosophically unprovable God.

All the 'unprovable' argument shows is that if you stretch the definition of God enough you can come up with some weird and wonderful concepts. That's where the ignostic position makes sense as without some boundaries on what can meaningfully be called God I can define my pencil as God and then God exists therefore the Bible might be true!!!!

 

[Antiquehunter]

I would tend to view my 'weak' atheism as a label for convenience sake, nothing more. For all intents and purposes, how I lead my life is entirely deity-free.

However, then some itelligent deist describes his viewpoint (there is a 'god', that 'god' may have been involved in creation of the universe, but walked away from it. That 'god' doesn't answer intercessory prayer and is disinterested in the day to day operations of our experiences - something like that) - and I certainly have no tools in my toolbox to suggest such a position is 'wrong' - it simply isn't my own.

So much as I don't worry about the existence of unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, I don't worry about the 'god'. But if you are one, or can show me one, my door is open. So if I'm a Dawkinsian 6.5 or a 6.9 or a 6.999999999999999 doesn't really bother me, and the labelling isn't particularly important or relevant for much more than debates like the one we're having here.

By the way - anyone want to place any bets if we see the OP back?

 

[devnull]

Strong atheism is "I believe gods don't exist". Weak atheism is "I don't believe gods exist". That's why strong atheism is essentially a matter of faith, even though most of the times not nearly as blind/unfounded as strong theism.

I don't agree. There is a lot of very convincing evidence. Faith doesn't enter into it.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I would tend to view my 'weak' atheism as a label for convenience sake, nothing more. For all intents and purposes, how I lead my life is entirely deity-free.

However, then some itelligent deist describes his viewpoint (there is a 'god', that 'god' may have been involved in creation of the universe, but walked away from it. That 'god' doesn't answer intercessory prayer and is disinterested in the day to day operations of our experiences - something like that) - and I certainly have no tools in my toolbox to suggest such a position is 'wrong' - it simply isn't my own.

So much as I don't worry about the existence of unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, I don't worry about the 'god'. But if you are one, or can show me one, my door is open. So if I'm a Dawkinsian 6.5 or a 6.9 or a 6.999999999999999 doesn't really bother me, and the labelling isn't particularly important or relevant for much more than debates like the one we're having here.

By the way - anyone want to place any bets if we see the OP back?

Deism to me is not an argument that there is a God but rather an argument that there was a God.

In any case, if you think at how the Deist arrived at their conclusion they basically 'just made it up' and the likelihood that of the infinite number of possible things they could have just made up they chose the correct answer is zero.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Deism to me is not an argument that there is a God but rather an argument that there was a God.

In any case, if you think at how the Deist arrived at their conclusion they basically 'just made it up' and the likelihood that of the infinite number of possible things they could have just made up they chose the correct answer is zero.

I don't necessarily disagree - I too tend to find deist arguments a bit contrived / desperate. However if someone wants a security blanket to hold onto, and their philosophical wrangling to arrive at such a conclusion makes them happy, then what business is it of mine?

At least no 'deists' such as the hypothetical I described here, are trying to force their worldview down my throat.

 

[laca]

Non-sequitur. All you've said here is, "The claim that gods don't exist is essentially a matter of faith". You haven't provided a single reason for that claim.

Oh, I haven't? Should I quote it again? Here, from my previous post: Strong atheism is "I believe gods don't exist".

It's a belief, not a lack thereof. Hence, it's based on certain amount of faith. Whatever keeps you from saying "I don't believe gods exist" and instead makes you say "I believe gods don't exist" is based on thin air. I really should not have to spell this out.

 

[zooterkin]

if anyone tells you that .999999999999 = 1, they're pulling your leg. Actually it's 0.(9)=1. As in, an infinity of 9's after decimal point. And yes, by the same token an infinity of zeroes after the decimal point would make that equal zero too. It should be even easier to see why. An infinity of zeroes and then a 1 is just zero point an infinity of zeroes, which should be easier to see why it's zero. There is no such thing as an infinity and one decimal places, so essentially that 1 never comes.

Someone should tell Doron.

 

[CriticalSock]

Agnostics are welcome here!

Jewish people who have some questions and who come onto the forum pretending to be agnostic....

Not so much.



Critical"Happy to have a foreskin"Sock

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Oh, I haven't? Should I quote it again? Here, from my previous post: Strong atheism is "I believe gods don't exist".

It's a belief, not a lack thereof. Hence, it's based on certain amount of faith. Whatever keeps you from saying "I don't believe gods exist" and instead makes you say "I believe gods don't exist" is based on thin air. I really should not have to spell this out.

If anything it seems to be based on what we mean when we say 'gods' and possibly 'believe' and maybe the philosophical fig-leaf that there is a meaningful difference between the two statements to start with.

 

[laca]

Don't buy this argument. 'All Gods' is just a collection of the specific God hypotheses put forward by different groups. If I can dismiss them each individually I can dismiss the collection of them too. Now if you mean 'any possible God hypothesis' then its more difficult but people don't believe in 'any possible God' they believe in a specific God. At that point its just wordplay and irrelevant. Atheism isn't about disbelief in statistical probabilities or philosophical semantic arguments it is about disbelief in specific defined Gods.

I'm obviously talking about any kind of god, whether formulated or not. I'm not limiting myself to the existing religions, why would I? I don't even know most of them well enough to know specifics about their claims. That's why I'm rather agnostic than strong atheist.

Yes, and atheism is disbelief in all known specific God hypotheses. If there is a new God hypothesis we can examine it and see if it is true. If it is, then we can believe it. If its not we can add it to the pot with the rest of them.

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine what atheism means.

 

[laca]

Intellectual honesty, or a philosophical fig leaf?

No, intellectual honesty.

Do most folks who claim to be at 6.5 or 6.9 really believe that there's any chance that God exists?

I'm sure some of them do. People can talk themselves into just about anything.

Yes, there is a chance. As long as it isn't zero, there's a chance. Ignoring that chance is the only thing that can get you to strong atheism. That's not intellectually honest. Unless in the event of evidence for the existence of gods you would ignore those too, no matter how overwhelming they would get eventually.

But suppose there existed a perfect lie detector, one which (somehow) could actually reveal what we do and don't believe. And imagine you were hooked up to one, and that one of your children were tied to a chair and the guy reading the PLD had a gun to your kid's head and was going to fire it if the PLD indicated any untruth.

And suppose the question came up, "Do you believe that God might be real?"

I wonder how many of the 6.5ers, in that situation, would answer "yes".

In that case I would ask "Which god?" and take it from there. For specific gods I would probably say no. If they said "any god", I'd have to say yes. Interesting though, that you would bring in appeal to emotion with my kid and the gun and all.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I'm obviously talking about any kind of god, whether formulated or not. I'm not limiting myself to the existing religions, why would I? I don't even know most of them well enough to know specifics about their claims. That's why I'm rather agnostic than strong atheist.

Why? Why would you include things that people haven't even thought of in an evaluation of whether a thing exists? That simply makes no sense

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine what atheism means.

And you don't get to redefine what God means. Atheism means a lack of belief in gods. How can you believe in something which the concept of hasn't even been though of yet?

Your definition of atheism renders the concept of God meaningless.

 

[laca]

I don't agree. There is a lot of very convincing evidence. Faith doesn't enter into it.

Yes, there is a lot of convincing evidence for some specific gods, but not all imaginable gods. The definition of atheism doesn't qualify the type of gods it refers to. Unless you want to qualify you atheism by "I'm atheistic toward all gods I know the definition of", then by all means. Otherwise, you're taking an extremely small but nonetheless existent leap of faith.