Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

Yes, it is redundant to everyone who accepts that we can't say we know anything with 100% certainty. It seems that not everyone agrees....

Do you really believe that there's any room for doubt that the earth is round like an orange rather than flat like a pancake? Or that Chuck E. Cheese (a 5' tall talking mouse in a baseball cap) is a fictional character rather than a living mammal?

If you say that you do believe there's any room for doubt there, then you're either trying to fool me, or successfully fooling yourself.

 

[Piggy]

I note that I've had only a couple of flippant responses to this request;

Seriously? That's the best any of you can do?

Don't have time now, but I'll try to post a response later this evening.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Well - I'm going to bow out of this conversation, as I'm really not sure there is any value to the debate ongoing rather than philosophical one upmanship. I am personally comfortable with the description I apply to my measure of lack of belief, and am largely unfussed by whether or not others judge me to be an atheist, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a hard atheist, a soft atheist, an agnostic atheist etc...

Just don't call me late for dinner.

 

[Piggy]

Well - I'm going to bow out of this conversation, as I'm really not sure there is any value to the debate ongoing rather than philosophical one upmanship. I am personally comfortable with the description I apply to my measure of lack of belief, and am largely unfussed by whether or not others judge me to be an atheist, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a hard atheist, a soft atheist, an agnostic atheist etc...

Just don't call me late for dinner.

Well, there are some of us here who reject the idea that this is a philosophical discussion at all.

There are some insisting that the question is not metaphysical, but rather a (quite significant) question about whether a darn important thing does or does not really and truly exist.

In fact, what we're trying to do is to demonstrate the vacuity of the philosophical approach and get the discussion firmly grounded in reality.

 

[laca]

My original thought was that the use of 'faith' by your use was to be too broad and that it therefore lacked any kind of useful function. If you applied the word 'faith' the same as 'belief' then why use the word at all if they are the same? Or, better yet, I was confused myself because I generally don't use 'faith' and 'belief' as synonymous.

Well, they are not exactly synonyms, but in this context I think they can be used interchangeably.

Yes, any definition leaves it up to the person asked. I'm arguing that the person who answers a question about 'all gods' based on just their own definition understands that you didn't first define what it is you're actually talking about; you're not defining anything upon which one can make a pronouncement as to belief in, or even hypothetical existence of.

I don't have to define anything: the question refers to all gods. The answer must be applicable to any god. How is that not clear?

 

[laca]

Wouldn't need to falsify it.

The UFM, as you define it here, is something which supposedly set off the Big Bang, but then leaves no discernable trace of itself in the resulting universe, therefore it can't be said to be "real" or to "exist" from our point of view.

How does our point of view in any way influence what exists (existed in this case) and what doesn't (didn't)?

It's also a Humpty-Dumpty god.

Not to mention that you'd have to explain how our understanding of the very early universe could possibly be made to agree with a "fart" from a "monkey", which clearly it does not.

Well obviously you know I wasn't talking about a usual monkey or a usual fart or you wouldn't have put them in quotes. Tell me then, how does it clearly disagree with our understanding of the very early universe?

So that little bit of un-thought-out mental effluvient does not require consideration at all.

Yes, it is easier to just hand-wave it away.

 

[laca]

Do you really believe that there's any room for doubt that the earth is round like an orange rather than flat like a pancake? Or that Chuck E. Cheese (a 5' tall talking mouse in a baseball cap) is a fictional character rather than a living mammal?

If you say that you do believe there's any room for doubt there, then you're either trying to fool me, or successfully fooling yourself.

Of course there's no doubt. The situation is entirely different with supernatural entities that are unknowable. I'm not so arrogant as to assert that nobody could come up with a god definition that I could not falsify. In such a case I would be forced to admit I was wrong, and I would. What would you do?

 

[laca]

Well, there are some of us here who reject the idea that this is a philosophical discussion at all.

There are some insisting that the question is not metaphysical, but rather a (quite significant) question about whether a darn important thing does or does not really and truly exist.

In fact, what we're trying to do is to demonstrate the vacuity of the philosophical approach and get the discussion firmly grounded in reality.

Firmly grounded in reality? Let's try this: I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of reality and its laws to be able to assert there is no god of any kind. How's that sound?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

That's not a necessary question since there is no evidence to begin with that even remotely suggests I should ask that question.

The question I think is appropriate is, what best explains god beliefs? We have lots of evidence god beliefs exist among people.

I don't dismiss the principle in the scientific process that "proof" is not the goal. I could have been certain in the 1800s, if I were alive then, that the Earth's crust was solid. It might have cracks but I would have still been certain the crust was solid.

As recently as a few decades ago, I was certain bacteria did not thrive in the extremely acidic gastric juices, let alone be the cause of ulcers.

It is a standard part of the scientific process to operate with a presumption of 99.99999999...[to infinity]% certainty for some things for which there is enough evidence to have confidence in that level of certainty. But even the conclusion, I need O₂ to survive, which has one of the highest degrees of certainty you can achieve, is subject to the same uncertainty as the god question you disagree I could be certain about.

Is it certain you need O₂ to survive? You could test it over and over and always get the same result. But in science, you would still never achieve 100% certainty. It is obvious to us we need O₂ to survive, so we never think about the issue of 100% certainty when discussing that conclusion. But it was just as obvious to most people in the 1800s that the Earth's crust was solid and just as obvious to most physicians in the 1970s that bacteria were not the cause of gastric ulcers.


I prefer not to confuse the two issues, the matter of how one treats certainty within the scientific process, and the certainty of the evidence that gods are fictional human inventions. I am just as certain there are no real gods as I am certain I need O₂ to survive. The evidence gods are fictional creations is that overwhelming IMO.


The problem I have with your approach, "you can't know for sure", is that this is applied with a double standard to god beliefs. We don't apply it to the theory of evolution or gravity. We especially don't apply it the the conclusion we need O₂ to survive. We don't really apply it to invisible pink unicorns or invisible garage dragons even though many scientists pay lip service to the uncertainty invisible dragons and unicorns could exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ....

Which is the case for a lot of things we have drawn conclusions about in science. One need not map out every genome of every species to draw conclusions about the genetic blueprints that control the development of all living organisms. One need not know a specific tree species to recognize a new tree one encounters is a tree. You know that when you see tree trunks, branches and needles or leaves in a certain shape you are looking at a tree.

How many god beliefs have to be shown to be myths with no exceptions being found before you can draw a conclusion about the pattern there?

 

[Pulvinar]

It is a standard part of the scientific process to operate with a presumption of 99.99999999...[to infinity]% certainty for some things for which there is enough evidence to have confidence in that level of certainty.

A nitpick: 99.99999999...[to infinity]% is exactly 100%. I don't think you meant that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

There's one logical argument. There is no way for any humans to be aware of such a god. If you care aware, then that god interacted. A stone too big to lift, anyone?

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

Why do you say this? It wasn't a one post and run OP. And, there are pages to read each day. It's not always easy to invest that amount of time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A nitpick: 99.99999999...[to infinity]% is exactly 100%. I don't think you meant that.

How certain are you that you need O₂ to live?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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' ....

My analogy is after losing challenge after challenge of their claims due to the evidence, they moved the goalpost off the playing field.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Why do you say this? It wasn't a one post and run OP. And, there are pages to read each day. It's not always easy to invest that amount of time.

Just a hunch, is all. Read the circ. thread (if you haven't already) and you may see why I arrive at such a suspicion.

 

[Pulvinar]

How certain are you that you need O₂ to live?

I'm not 100% certain of anything. But I was actually commenting on the math. How about "for all practical purposes"?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

For all the chatter here, there's one topic which no one really addressed.

It was established fairly quickly that Nicole isn't really agnostic, because she has a pretty firm handle on exactly which beard-in-the-sky she questions the existence of. She's not a real theist either, because historically this particular beard in the sky tends to get a mite tetchy when you voice doubts as to its existence.

So what's that make her? What possible labels exist for the Doubting Thomas territory between theism and ietsism?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you really believe that there's any room for doubt that the earth is round like an orange rather than flat like a pancake? Or that Chuck E. Cheese (a 5' tall talking mouse in a baseball cap) is a fictional character rather than a living mammal?

If you say that you do believe there's any room for doubt there, then you're either trying to fool me, or successfully fooling yourself.

I vote for living mammal. I've met him. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

For all the chatter here, there's one topic which no one really addressed.

It was established fairly quickly that Nicole isn't really agnostic, because she has a pretty firm handle on exactly which beard-in-the-sky she questions the existence of. She's not a real theist either, because historically this particular beard in the sky tends to get a mite tetchy when you voice doubts as to its existence.

So what's that make her? What possible labels exist for the Doubting Thomas territory between theism and ietsism?

An AYahwehist?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gods are the product of a mythological worldview that has now collapsed. ....

It has? I wish.