"Agnostics are Nowhere Men"

[MikeSun5]

Which god or gods do you believe in?

Eric Clapton.

 

[blobru]

That post was moved to Deep Storage as it was nothing but a personal attack and a request to be unregistered. That request has been granted.

Posted By: Tricky

In that case, I'd like to dedicate this unrequested -- and more or less inevitable given my track record -- song parody to our special guest: noreligion!


He's a real agnostic
Mixing up egg nog with Quick
Two suckers and one long lick
for nobody.

Doesn't know what he believes
'What Child Is This?' or 'Greensleeves'
Isn't he a breed of frenemy?

Agnostic, please listen
You must take a position
Agnostic, it's tur-r-r-tles all the way down!

(guitar break)

He's as kind as he can be
Ask him he'll say, "Don't ask me"
Agnostic who do you think you are?

Agnostic, don't worry
Take your pick, don't hurry
I mean it's not as if whether you're going to hell or not
depends on it (ferchrissakes!)

Doesn't have a point of view
Where he's going you will too
Unless you bow down and worship GOD!!!

Agnostic don't listen
Read Dawkins and some Hitchens
Agnostic, God's dead, don't you understand!?

He's a real agnostic
The way he acts it makes me sick
Got no carrot got no stick
for nobody...
Got no carrot got no stick
for nobody...
Got no carrot got no stick
for nobody!

 

[MikeSun5]

I can't reply to everyone, so I'll just make some general comments.

(Most) Atheists don't believe there is no God(s) - they just don't believe in any God(s).

In a philosophical sense, (most) atheists are also agnostic, because they are open to new possibilities.

But in the real world (away from philosophical caveats and justifications), agnostic atheists are just plain atheists.

^^ this is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned those who feel compelled to generalize and label others.

Reminds me of an earlier thread I remember about Buddhist-Atheists. There are those that are atheists and practicing Buddhists at the same time, and the thread eventually just became, "You're not an atheist!" "Yes I am!" "You're not a Buddhist!" "Yes I am!"

I identify myself as agnostic. Don't believe me? Fine.

 

[JoelKatz]

Here's my version of the argument made in the original post: If you have no hair, you are bald. If you have hair, it must be some color. If it's brown, you have brown hair. If it's red, you have red hair. There's no room for agnostics.

What the argument misses is that agnosticism is not a position on the existence of god. So that all the other positions on the existence of god have names does not mean there's no room for agnosticism.

If you believe that god's existence can never be proven or disproven by any means, but choose to believe in god as an act of faith, you are an agnostic and also a theist. If you believe that god's existence can never be proven or disproven by any means, and therefore refuse to believe in god without the evidence you know you will never have, you are an agnostic and also an atheist.

It is correct, of course, that agnosticism is not an alternative to theism or atheism. It is a position on the knowability of god's existence and is compatible with either of them. (Though the term is almost exclusively used by atheists, whether they choose to admit they are atheists or not, to distinguish their particular type of atheism.)

By the way, the majority of atheists are not agnostics. Most atheists reject the idea that we cannot conclude that something fanciful and absurd does not exist unless we check the entire universe for it. Most people are perfectly happy to believe that there are not two bug-eyed, undetectable elves currently frolicking on the dark side of the moon despite the impossibility of checking for them.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Someone who is not a philosophy buff would probably be bored to tears if you started explaining why you're an agnostic atheist when they simply want to know if you believe in (a) God.

^^this^^

It's only in places where us nutters congregate that we discuss these fine shades of meaning.

 

[OrangeCatz]

I feel like we're talking about two different kinds of belief.

I believe that the concept of god cannot be dis-proven, and is incredibly improbable.
I also believe that god does not exist.

The first is my belief based on evidence.
My second is belief based on faith.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

By the way, the majority of atheists are not agnostics. Most atheists reject the idea that we cannot conclude that something fanciful and absurd does not exist unless we check the entire universe for it. Most people are perfectly happy to believe that there are not two bug-eyed, undetectable elves currently frolicking on the dark side of the moon despite the impossibility of checking for them.

I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm perfectly happy to conclude that something fanciful and absurd does not exist without checking the entire universe for it. I also don't believe in two bug-eyed, undetectable elves frolicking on the dark side of the moon.

I have no idea why you think that either of those is an agnostic position.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I feel like we're talking about two different kinds of belief.

I believe that the concept of god cannot be dis-proven, and is incredibly improbable.
I also believe that god does not exist.

The first is my belief based on evidence.
My second is belief based on faith.

I'd disagree with that, too. I don't not believe in God as an act of faith. I don't believe in God because the evidence on the matter is overwhelmingly for there not being a God. In fact all the evidence that exists is for there not being a God and there is no evidence whatsoever that God or gods exist. Given that, it's not a matter of faith to not believe in God, it's a matter of logical thinking and rationality.

It's not illogical or irrational to say that something is so improbable that it isn't true, even as you leave yourself open to the remote possibility that you're wrong.

 

[gumboot]

There's a chapter in the Australian Book of Atheism called Agnostics are Nowhere Men, and it's written by David Horton (author, retired zoologist and archaeologist).

In it, he writes:

"If you understand that there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence, no evidence of any kind, not even a scintilla of a suggestion that there might be some evidence - if only we knew where to look - for the existence of anything you might call God (or indeed anything of any supernatural kind), then you are an atheist, not an agnostic. And if you think there is such evidence, then you are a theist, not an agnostic. Let's see, that means the place for agnostics is ... nowhere. Or at least in a surreal queue waiting for evidence that there isn't even a suggestion of. A bit like waiting at a blank wall in the vain hope someone will build an ATM in front of you ... at some point, maybe.

"Being agnostic is [...] like being a little bit pregnant. Either you believe that something supernatural called "God" exists or you don't. There isn't any halfway house in this element of human culture. There is no spectrum of proof for the existence of a supernatural being ranging from no proof, through to sort of more-or-less suggestive proofs, through to strong, hard evidence. If there was such a spectrum then an atheist would be one who believed that none of the proofs were any good, a theist that all the proofs were really believable, and an agnostic that there was no hard evidence, but that some of the suggested proofs had some merit. But there isn't such a spectrum. Accepting any of the so-called proofs for the existence of God makes someone theist, not agnostic, and accepting none of them makes someone atheist, not agnostic."


I find this argument quite compelling.

What's your opinion of agnostics?

I think it's a false choice fallacy.

He basically says you have to believe in Gods, or believe Gods don't exist. It's possible, however, to hold no belief about Gods whatsoever. Like me. And I don't consider myself to be, nor want to be associated with, atheists.

 

[OrangeCatz]

It's not illogical or irrational to say that something is so improbable that it isn't true, even as you leave yourself open to the remote possibility that you're wrong.

Yeah, I guess that says it netter. I was feeling a bit uncomfortable with my phrasing.

What I am trying to say is, I admit the possibility that god could exist. At the same time, I firmly believe that god does not exist, and that it is ridiculous to act as if god did exist.

 

[gumboot]

I don't believe in God because the evidence on the matter is overwhelmingly for there not being a God.

I often hear atheists making this claim, but I've never heard what this "overwhelming" evidence is. What evidence is there, that God doesn't exist?

 

[The Norseman]

I often hear atheists making this claim, but I've never heard what this "overwhelming" evidence is. What evidence is there, that God doesn't exist?

When theists make testable claims for their version of god, they get tested and -- so far -- they fail.

As was said here fairly recently, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when some sort of evidence is expected.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I often hear atheists making this claim, but I've never heard what this "overwhelming" evidence is. What evidence is there, that God doesn't exist?

Well, there's the way that religious experiences can be recreated in the laboratory by stimulating areas of the brain, there's the historical development of the stories in the Bible from Yahweh the god of war of the Canaanites into the monotheistic God now known, the way that religion is mostly determined by culture rather than truly being universal...all sorts of things. None of these are by any means conclusive, but they do reveal explanations for human behaviour, how Christianity could develop and survive out of old forgotten religions, reasons to doubt the claims of religions to be "the truth", etc. Put them all together and it paints quite a clear picture. Compare that with the lack of evidence for gods which cannot have a mundane explanation and it's obvious where the evidence points.

 

[JoelKatz]

I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm perfectly happy to conclude that something fanciful and absurd does not exist without checking the entire universe for it. I also don't believe in two bug-eyed, undetectable elves frolicking on the dark side of the moon.

I have no idea why you think that either of those is an agnostic position.

If you are able to conclude that god does not exist, how can you be an agnostic?

 

[MikeSun5]

It's possible, however, to hold no belief about Gods whatsoever. Like me.

And me. 100%. I choose not to care. Also, I'd choose knowledge over belief any day.

And I don't consider myself to be, nor want to be associated with, atheists.

Again, agreed. 100%
Well.... I think now we're getting down to the real issue here. In my personal experience, I've found many atheists to be as faith-based and intolerant to other POVs as many religious fundies are. Exactly the type of attitude necessary to insist on lumping unwilling people into their group.

 

[tourmaline]

I identify myself as agnostic. Don't believe me? Fine.

ag·nos·tic
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
(dictionary.com)

So you claim that god(s) are unknown or unknowable?

 

[Chucky]

It says the sun stopped in the sky. The only way that is possible is if the Earth stopped rotating. Take a damn science class.

Not that I believe in any such nonsense, but what proof is being brought forward to support the claim? No one else on earth seemed to see any such thing and seems a poor example to argue from. But for the sake of argument, how about a consensual hallucination by an alien race with sufficient technology? Would that be impossible? Or better yet if it were universally seen one day, it would be credible to assume that a level of technology that could bend, filter and create a sufficient amount light and heat source from space that makes the moving sun seem to stand still. That along with a few other tricks to create pictures in the sky or darken vast regions of it from earth (to get the sun back on it's normal schedule). And or/ using some sort of drugs or human psychology or whatever else to enhance the effect could make it appear so that the day did last longer than usual. Especially if you're an interstellar race which is able to find us and show up here and interact with human, no mean feat in itself, and one assumes magical-seeming technology at that level.

There's more than one way to skin this cat. Read a damn article on brainstorming.

 

[JoelKatz]

I often hear atheists making this claim, but I've never heard what this "overwhelming" evidence is. What evidence is there, that God doesn't exist?

There is overwhelming evidence that would be accepted by everyone but complete nutcases as conclusive in any other arena of human thought other than religion. To begin with, there's the fact that nobody has been able to explain what god is made of, how god does the things he has been claimed to do, or even what the claimed attributes for god even mean. There are the multiple conflicting accounts, the drastically more probable explanations for all the purported accounts, and the lack of any validated accounts even when such things would be expected if god existed as proposed.

But more importantly, there is overwhelming evidence that god's existence is impossible. There is simply no conceivable method by which a person could become convinced that a god existed that wouldn't drastically change their notion of what god is. God, as currently understood, is simply not capable of existing.

To propose something and be capable of being correct, one must describe what one is proposing in sufficient detail that one is capable of identifying the thing proposed. You can't say "there's a thing somewhere" and ever be right, no matter what is found nor where it is found -- nothing would make the thing found the think you were talking about. Lacking specificity, your words can never identify an entity. If you have to wait until we find something to say "oh yeah, that's what I meant", then you have to change your claim to make it correct, and your original claim remains incorrect.

And all we have for god is what he is not. God is "supernatural", that is, he is not natural, but that's all we know about the supernatural. God's power has no limits, but what is its nature? Nobody says. God is "holy", but what does "holy" mean other than godly?

The evidence all but conclusively suggests that nobody is capable of using the word "god" to identify an existent. In fact, there is no way two people who both claimed to believe in god could ever know if they believed in the same thing at all, because they can't manage to align their concepts to be even capable of identifying a thing.

 

[Chucky]

ag·nos·tic
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
(dictionary.com)

So you claim that god(s) are unknown or unknowable?

It seems that if one is going to depend on science and mathematics, my understanding is the position held by most people who work on the big issues in the realm of the testable is that it's likely that there are hard limits as to what is to be known. Often referred to are Godel's Theorem or Turning Halting States where some mathematical problems are unsolvable. Or I've heard of computations so hard to make that if we could turn every atom in the universe into a computational machine we still couldn't know such answers. If this is all true, the testable and measurable are not completely knowable and thus I Don't Know is the default position as none can be truly gnostic.

And since there is no way to measure or test claims which are unmeasurable or untestable, it is impossible to determine whether they are true or not. This would mean that those claims are also unknowable. Making on some level agnosticism an unavoidable consequence all around to everyone.

On the other hand, part of why I'd consider myself an atheist is the dark horse in the race that could possibly win. That is the position that we don't know that all things are not actually knowable particularly if there are ways to measure which are unmeasurable by current standards. Or that we may be able to finally dismiss other things that we now suppose cannot be measured against some future certainty. Consider that the scientific method is only 400 years old. Arguably it and the math that supports it were not widely used until the industrial revolution was revved up an running. We've had game changers come along such as General Relativity and Quantum physics. And since then human knowledge in that realm and technology have been increasing exponentially and have changed the world vastly beyond all other human endeavors since our ancestors came down from the trees and walked upright. Science has an excellent track record. So who's to say what might be known given merely another 400 years? Or 4000 years or 50,000 or a million years from now? Or even 20 years for that matter.

We might be able to cross off the notions of a creator as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe was crossed off the list of expected phenomenon once Max Plank helped overturn classical physics with modern physics. Perhaps, at least in certain instances, could Godel or Turning be overturned? (I know, not at all credible at this point, but who here is absolutely gnostic about what we'll learn eventually?) Or perhaps we'll even find a subtle but universal footprint of a creator of the universe.

In any case, I say it's way too early for anyone to be making assumptions of what is knowable or unknowable, at least until science and math have run their course as much as that is possible. Call it agnosticism-plus. If it turns out that our descendants can know 98% about everything that is someday, that should be a comfortable amount of evidence to make pretty good assumptions about the rest. And who can say that it won't be 100%? Despite the high confidence that this is currently impossible (and that is my personal default position) on the other hand, you never know.

 

[stevea]

...."If you understand that there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence, no evidence of any kind, not even a scintilla of a suggestion that there might be some evidence - if only we knew where to look - for the existence of anything you might call God (or indeed anything of any supernatural kind), then you are an atheist, ...."

That's a classic Ad ignorantiam fallacy. restated ... because there is no evidence for God, we must accept the atheist proposition.

Assuming we are talking about a unique super-being who has created the entirety of "reality" - everything we are able to sense, then my position is that there is absolutely no evidence at all on the question of whether such a God exists, OR NOT.

Further I'd argue that the only sort of evidence we are able to consider is physical evidence, therefore we cannot possibly ever have convincing evidence of anything supernatural. Since conceptually this being exists beyond our physical reality it's not reasonable to expect that we could exhaustivey search for God to prove it doesn't exist. My position is that there is no evidence and never can be any either way.

So we might invoke "burden of proof' rules, but frankly these have no basis in reason and are primarily a means of adjudicating debate. If this deism question was a scientific theory, then we could invoke Occam's razor and remove the deist proposition as containing unnecessary presuppositions. But this is not a scientific theory, and the point of the scientific method is to model physical reality, which is not directly applicable here.

Nope - "Does God exist" is just one of a zillion questions where there is insufficient evidence either way, and any determination (which I consider fundamentally impossible) will have no bearing on my personal decisions or actions. It's a "can't know & don't care" question.

Is there a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri ? Does Francois Mitterand's dog have fleas ? These questions differ since they are potentially knowable. We can assign probabilities to these based on critical thinking about related evidence about precedent conditions. There is no such evidentiary basis to apply critical thinking to the deism question - it''s a hard dead-end.