Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Last of the Fraggles]

. As long as it isn't zero, there's a chance.

How do you know it isn't zero, in the absence of a specific hypothesis?

 

[laca]

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.

Are you saying there's no meaningful difference between saying "I don't believe there are any gods" and "I believe there are no gods"? Just trying to clarify.

 

[laca]

How do you know it isn't zero, in the absence of a specific hypothesis?

I know because there are definitions of gods that are unfalsifiable.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Are you saying there's no meaningful difference between saying "I don't believe there are any gods" and "I believe there are no gods"? Just trying to clarify.

I'm saying that two different people could say "I don't believe gods exist" and "I believe gods don't exist" and mean the same thing and that there is enough wiggle room in the definitions of believe, gods and exist that trying to nail down a clear distinction between the two statements is a fools errand.

Is it even important? Do we debate the difference between saying I don't believe homeopathy works and I believe homeopathy doesn't work?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I know because there are definitions of gods that are unfalsifiable.

Are there? Are these things still 'Gods'? Can they meaningfully 'exist'? Do people actually 'believe' in them?

 

[Piggy]

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.

But that's your phrasing. Mine is "God doesn't exist" period.

You have spelled nothing out here. It's still a non-sequitur, and to make it worse, it's one based on your own contrived definition of atheism.

 

[Piggy]

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.

There is no such "chance" to ignore.

Gods are the product of a mythological worldview that has now collapsed. There's no more chance of God existing than there is of the world really being flat like a pancake rather than round like an orange.

God has lost every round and there are no more rounds to fight.

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.

It's not an appeal to emotion, and you should know that. The thought experiment is intended to get us to think about what we really do believe when there are consequences to those beliefs, not just when we're sitting around gassing about philosophical abstracts.

You might be willing to say "Yes". Like I say, people can talk themselves into just about anything.

But if I said "Yes" there'd be a dead kid in that chair, so I'd be obliged to say "No".

 

[laca]

I'm saying that two different people could say "I don't believe gods exist" and "I believe gods don't exist" and mean the same thing

Yes.

and that there is enough wiggle room in the definitions of believe, gods and exist that trying to nail down a clear distinction between the two statements is a fools errand.

No. No matter how much wiggle room there is (btw. wiggle room in "exists"? srsly?) the distinction is quite clear. In one case one believes something, in the other one doesn't.

Is it even important? Do we debate the difference between saying I don't believe homeopathy works and I believe homeopathy doesn't work?

Yes, it's the same issue. And for all intents and purposes it's not important. What's important is how we behave toward gods/homeopathy.

I explained why I choose to rather use "I don't believe": intellectual honesty. I'm not saying that whoever says they believe there are no gods is intellectually dishonest, I hope that's clear. For me it would be.

 

[Piggy]

I know because there are definitions of gods that are unfalsifiable.

But here's the kicker.... Do these unfalsifiable definitions also allow meaningful assertions of those gods' existence or reality?

I think you'll find the answer is no.

 

[laca]

Are there? Are these things still 'Gods'?

Yes and yes.

Can they meaningfully 'exist'? Do people actually 'believe' in them?

None of these is a requirement for them to be considered gods.

 

[Piggy]

None of these is a requirement for them to be considered gods.

So you're saying you can simply whip up a definition that no one actually accepts and assert that it's valid. There's a term for this fallacy. It's called Humpty-Dumptyism.

And in any case, having a definition of God is not sufficient to assert its potential reality. I can write you up a quite detailed definition of an orc, for example, even though orcs do not exist.

 

[laca]

But that's your phrasing. Mine is "God doesn't exist" period.

How is that in any way different? I took the least constrained form, yours is much stronger. The argument still holds.

You have spelled nothing out here. It's still a non-sequitur, and to make it worse, it's one based on your own contrived definition of atheism.

Where am I taking the unwarranted conclusion? Maybe you're referring to my hidden assumption that the probability that there is a god is non-zero? In case you can show that it is not so, my argument would become invalid due to it relying on a false proposition, but not a non sequitur. I'm not seeing how this is a non-sequitur.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Interesting that a self-professed agnostic would follow that practice, though.

Old habits die hard, or there may not be any reason to change them.

I know a Jewish atheist and a ex-Muslim atheist, neither eats pork.

 

[laca]

There is no such "chance" to ignore.

Gods are the product of a mythological worldview that has now collapsed. There's no more chance of God existing than there is of the world really being flat like a pancake rather than round like an orange.

God has lost every round and there are no more rounds to fight.

You're basically saying that the probability of any god to have ever existed is zero. I'm saying it's not zero, just extremely small.

It's not an appeal to emotion, and you should know that. The thought experiment is intended to get us to think about what we really do believe when there are consequences to those beliefs, not just when we're sitting around gassing about philosophical abstracts.

Please note I didn't say you committed the appeal to emotion fallacy. You just appealed to emotion by bringing in my kid.

You might be willing to say "Yes". Like I say, people can talk themselves into just about anything.

But if I said "Yes" there'd be a dead kid in that chair, so I'd be obliged to say "No".

What? Wasn't the guy going to fire if the machine indicated untruth? I was trying to answer truthfully. Sorry, either me or you are losing the line of thought here. Why should I talk myself into anything if I'm just trying to answer truthfully?

 

[laca]

But here's the kicker.... Do these unfalsifiable definitions also allow meaningful assertions of those gods' existence or reality?

I think you'll find the answer is no.

No.

 

[laca]

So you're saying you can simply whip up a definition that no one actually accepts and assert that it's valid. There's a term for this fallacy. It's called Humpty-Dumptyism.

I'm not saying it's valid (whatever that may mean). I'm saying that atheism covers them all. Formulated, non-formulated, defined, not defined, believed in, ignored, etc.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I can write you up a quite detailed definition of an orc, for example, even though orcs do not exist.

But can you be SURE they don't exist.

 

[Rasmus]

Intellectual honesty, or a philosophical fig leaf?

Intellectual masturbation, in my case.

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

No, I don't believe there is a "chance" in any meaningful way. Back to Descartes: I cannot prove that the reality I perceive is real. And in as much as I can't, I can't know/prove that there is no god.

Do I - does anyone - really believe there is a chance I am just a brain in a vat? No.

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

I feel uncomfortable when I say I have a "chance" to win the jackpot in the lottery, even though I can express the likeliness of that event to occur in numbers. But that number has nothing to do with what I actually mean when I say "chance" that I'd rather not use that term. It is merely not impossible that I win the lottery.

Now, here "chance" is to "not impossible" as my 9.5 is to 10 on the Dawkins Scale (in principle. The distinction between the 9.5 and the 10 is a lot bigger.)

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".

I would answer either "yes" or "no" after a long and careful discussion about what a lot of these words are supposed to mean.

I think there is a chance that god exists, if by "chance" you mean the same chance that I actually live in the matrix: A thought experiment that you may or may not find entertaining or interesting, but one that you cannot logically and with absolute certainty refute."

If it means anything more real than that, then: No, there is no god.
In the sense that i can know anything at all, I know that.

 

[Aepervius]

Reading through many of the threads on this forum, I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe.
For the record, I consider myself to be a very rational thinker. I cannot commit myself to saying that G-d exists 100% because I have no tangible proof. However, I refuse to say that G-d does not exist for the same reason. Also, I honestly hope that there is some intelligent, good force in this universe; I admit my unscientific bias but even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this... which leads me back to my thread topic "Are agnostics welcome here?"

You will be told that you are probably not "agnostic" alone, but a rare case of agnostic-theist or agnostic-deist whatever. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Not belief.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes. No. No matter how much wiggle room there is (btw. wiggle room in "exists"? srsly?) the distinction is quite clear. In one case one believes something, in the other one doesn't.

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, it's the same issue. And for all intents and purposes it's not important. What's important is how we behave toward gods/homeopathy.

I explained why I choose to rather use "I don't believe": intellectual honesty. I'm not saying that whoever says they believe there are no gods is intellectually dishonest, I hope that's clear. For me it would be.

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

None of these is a requirement for them to be considered gods.

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?