Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Aepervius]

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

I exists : No god of any description would bestow such an horror on humanity .

Well maybe except nyaralatothep or Yog Sototh.

 

[Ysidro]

Then who made the aliens?

Answer 1: Aliens. It's aliens all the way down.

Answer 2: Future humans did. It's a closed time loop.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

No.

This will probably come across more snarky than it's meant to be but are you saying that your position is that you are not a strong atheist because you believe there is a non-zero probability that a God that could not meaningfully have the property existence may actually exist and/or there is a non-zero chance that someone may be able to imagine at some point in the future a concept of God that could not meaningfully have the property existence to exist regardless of whether they actually believe such a God actually does exist?

 

[wollery]

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



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.

Whether or not you believe in something has no bearing on whether or not it actually exists. Likewise, whether or not someone has come up with the concept of something has no bearing on whether or not something exists.

Unless you want to suggest that gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics or any of a billion other things didn't exist until someone imagined that they might.

 

[laca]

Yes, wiggle room in 'exists'. I believe the distinction only exists in the language you use and not in the reality of the positions held. Inevitably, these discussions, to me, revolve around trying to resolve fundamental imprecision in language rather than differentiation of two meaningfully different arguments.

Yes, like I said, the important thing is whether you let it influence your decisions/actions.

But nobody ever argues the distinction between not believing homeopathy works and believing homeopathy doesn't work.

Yes, but that scenario is comparable to atheism toward a very specific god.

No, but at least one of them would be a fundamental requirement of existence, which is the question we are addressing.

How have you determined that these things are Gods incidentally?

Which things?

 

[laca]

This will probably come across more snarky than it's meant to be but are you saying that your position is that you are not a strong atheist because you believe there is a non-zero probability that a God that could not meaningfully have the property existence may actually exist and/or there is a non-zero chance that someone may be able to imagine at some point in the future a concept of God that could not meaningfully have the property existence to exist regardless of whether they actually believe such a God actually does exist?

No.

I'm not a strong atheist because I cannot reasonably draw that conclusion. I am a strong atheist toward the Abrahamic God for example, but I realize that there are endless definitions of gods that are unfalsifiable. I also think that all of the unfalsifiable gods are totally irrelevant for us. Unfortunately, the definition of atheism does not include the "gods relevant for humans" qualifier, so I cannot arrive at "I believe there are no gods".

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Whether or not you believe in something has no bearing on whether or not it actually exists. Likewise, whether or not someone has come up with the concept of something has no bearing on whether or not something exists.

Unless you want to suggest that gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics or any of a billion other things didn't exist until someone imagined that they might.

No, but it does effect whether you believe in it. The question of whether I or we believe a god or gods exist(s) contains 3 elements - existence, godness and belief - which all need to be satisfied.

 

[Darat]

No.

I'm not a strong atheist because I cannot reasonably draw that conclusion. I am a strong atheist toward the Abrahamic God for example, but I realize that there are endless definitions of gods that are unfalsifiable. I also think that all of the unfalsifiable gods are totally irrelevant for us. Unfortunately, the definition of atheism does not include the "gods relevant for humans" qualifier, so I cannot arrive at "I believe there are no gods".

I think you are looking at this the wrong way around and in effect answering the wrong question. Theist is having a belief in a deity, the question to see if you are an atheist i.e. someone without that belief is "Which god or gods do you believe in?" not "Do you think there could be a god?".

 

[laca]

I think you are looking at this the wrong way around and in effect answering the wrong question. Theist is having a belief in a deity, the question to see if you are an atheist i.e. someone without that belief is "Which god or gods do you believe in?" not "Do you think there could be a god?".

I see your point, however, we were discussing the differences between "no belief in gods" and "belief in no gods".

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, like I said, the important thing is whether you let it influence your decisions/actions.

Yes, but that scenario is comparable to atheism toward a very specific god.

Which things?

You claimed there were concepts of God that were unfalsifiable. I was asking how we can arrive at the conclusion that these concepts of God fit the definition of God.

My contention is that if you examine these theories of God that you say cannot be dismissed they are either meaninglessly vague in which case the issue is a problem of definition or they lack the essential elements that I would consider necessary for them either to be considered Gods or to actually exist. My further contention is that people don't actually believe in them anyway they are just convenient tools for arguing.

My position on God is probably better expressed as 'If you believe in a god, then the god you believe in does not exist.' (For all meaningful values of god, believe and exist) I have no idea where that comes on Dawkins scale but there is a measure of ignosticism rolled into strong atheism.

No.

I'm not a strong atheist because I cannot reasonably draw that conclusion. I am a strong atheist toward the Abrahamic God for example, but I realize that there are endless definitions of gods that are unfalsifiable. I also think that all of the unfalsifiable gods are totally irrelevant for us. Unfortunately, the definition of atheism does not include the "gods relevant for humans" qualifier, so I cannot arrive at "I believe there are no gods".

I may have misunderstood but I believe your answer to whether these unfalsifiable Gods could meaningfully exist was 'no'.

What makes you believe that the term atheist has or needs to have applicability beyond the realm of 'things relevant for humans'?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I see your point, however, we were discussing the differences between "no belief in gods" and "belief in no gods".

You've yet to convince me there are any. Presumably its the difference between being bald and not having hair?

 

[Pulvinar]

Anyone else notice that we haven't heard from Nicole since page 2?

 

[Antiquehunter]

Anyone else notice that we haven't heard from Nicole since page 2?

Indeed I have. And based on the debate in another thread where she appeared, I have a suspicion that she's not going to be heard from again. Hope I'm wrong.

ETA: I could very well be wrong, as she's posting again in the other thread! Hooray! Maybe we haven't lost her!

I guess to answer the OP - Of course they're welcomed. Just expect to have your thread derailed by an exercise in mental wanking.

 

[tsig]

How does the fact a single individual is or is not certain, prove your point?

I am certain I live on the planet Earth. I am certain I am a human woman. In science, certainty is relative. If I were to put my certainty that gods are mythical beings on a scale of scientific certainly, it would rank up there with those fist two declarations. Are any of the three conclusions absolutely certain? Only because science never allows perfect certainty, no. But for all intents and purposes in a rational world, yes.

We're constantly told that the existence of god isn't a scientific question then told that since science can't prove anything at 100% we have to leave the god question open.

 

[tsig]

I'm sure enough to assume I do and not walk in front of a bus or something, just not 100% sure. Are you 100% sure you exist?

Why yes and my mother agrees.

You seem to be heading towards solipsism.

 

[wollery]

No, but it does effect whether you believe in it. The question of whether I or we believe a god or gods exist(s) contains 3 elements - existence, godness and belief - which all need to be satisfied.

Exactly. You don't believe, but you don't know. You are an atheist and an agnostic.

 

[tsig]

So how is strong atheism a matter of faith again?

Apparently it takes faith to non-believe.

ETA: not believing in god = believing in god therefore not believing = believing. With god all things are possible except defeating iron chariots.

 

[Darat]

Exactly. You don't believe, but you don't know. You are an atheist and an agnostic.

The only problem I see with that is by that argument we would have to say we are "agnostic" about everything as we can't say we know anything with "100% certainty". And to me that means it is pretty redundant.

I prefer and find it much more useful to think of agnosticism as being a belief akin to theism, so agnosticism becomes a statement of belief i.e. that it is not possible even in principle for a human to know whether a god exists or not.

 

[laca]

You claimed there were concepts of God that were unfalsifiable. I was asking how we can arrive at the conclusion that these concepts of God fit the definition of God.

You're confusing. I'm talking about "gods" or "a god" and you're talking about "God". For me, God with a capital G means the Abrahamic God. I don't use capital G to make it clear I'm talking about a non-specific god.

So what do you mean by "the definition of God"?

What if I believe in the Holy Universe-farting Monkey that farted the Big Bang but annihilated itself in the process? How could you falsify that, for example?

My contention is that if you examine these theories of God that you say cannot be dismissed they are either meaninglessly vague in which case the issue is a problem of definition or they lack the essential elements that I would consider necessary for them either to be considered Gods or to actually exist. My further contention is that people don't actually believe in them anyway they are just convenient tools for arguing.

Well, there's your problem.

My position on God is probably better expressed as 'If you believe in a god, then the god you believe in does not exist.' (For all meaningful values of god, believe and exist) I have no idea where that comes on Dawkins scale but there is a measure of ignosticism rolled into strong atheism.

Why does it have to be meaningful?

I may have misunderstood but I believe your answer to whether these unfalsifiable Gods could meaningfully exist was 'no'.

No. Furthermore, could you clarify what you mean by something to "meaningfully exist"?

What makes you believe that the term atheist has or needs to have applicability beyond the realm of 'things relevant for humans'?

It doesn't need to have, it just does, because the definition does not include "relevant for humans" at any point.

 

[laca]

You've yet to convince me there are any. Presumably its the difference between being bald and not having hair?

Is there a difference between "not running to the store" and "running not to the store"?