Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[fuelair]

Us actual atheists seem to be a rather small minority here. Piggy is the only name that comes to my mind, but there are probably a few others I can’t remember (or aren’t aware of).

Agnostic atheism seems to be majority around these parts. Of course there are agnostics and theists of all varieties, as well. And they are welcome as much as anybody (and probably more because they bring different views into the discussions).

Me are definitely atheist.

 

[wollery]

I think it was Dogdoctor who used to have as his signature "I'm a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either"

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Agnosticism doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, it merely allows for the possibility of its existence, just as it merely allows for the existence of god. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

 

[Piggy]

As I understand it (I don't call myself a skeptic, so this is an exterior perspective), skepticism is a process, not a result. As long as one is willing to apply systematic doubt to a problem, one can call themselves a skeptic--they just haven't gotten around to that issue yet.

If you believe in God, then you've gotten around to that issue.

I've always understood atheism to be a metaphysical position (ie, "There is a God/are gods" vs. "There aren't", which would imply fundamentally different universes)

How does that make it metaphysical?

The question of God's existence is neither metaphysical nor philosophical. It's just another question about our universe, on par with "Is the universe expanding?" or "Is there life on other planets?" or "Is the population of Nebraska greater than that of Iowa?"

Either this thing exists or it doesn't. You might as well say that the question "Does bigfoot exist?" is a metaphysical question.

 

[fuelair]

Well, Tricky, the math guys and gals keep trying (unsuccessfully) to convince me that .999999999999 = 1, so wouldn't .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 = 0?


Meh, it does to me.

You can make it be so, but that is just a trick of numbers and calculations with them. Just like you can prove nothing exists by playing games with definitions of geometric terms and normal math of zeros. It's another example of why I am quite certain there is really nothing to philosophy but weird discussions that prove nothing but words.

 

[Dinwar]

No, I understand the meaning. I'm just a bit stricter about my epistemology than that. Until someone provides a reason to think something may be true (a VALID reason, which is where religion fails), accepting the possibility that it's true is to accept the arbitrary as a valid concept. That's wrong--the arbitrary has no epistemological value, and should be dismissed entirely.

Once someone provides proof that gods exist, or a logically sound reason for thinking they do, I'll re-evaluate my conclusion about them. Until then, there's no reason to do so, nor is there any reason to allow for even the possibility of their existence--no more so than there is to believe there's a chance four turtles who have mastered martial arts are protecting New York from a giant disembodied brain.

 

[Dinwar]

Either this thing exists or it doesn't. You might as well say that the question "Does bigfoot exist?" is a metaphysical question.

Bigfoot existing doesn't require a fundamental shift in our understanding of the nature of the universe as a whole. If gods exist, the whole concept of a rational, consistent universe (the foundational assumption of science) is invalid--it's all an illusion, caused by God wanting it to be this way. Bigfoot existing merely adjusts a relatively minor portion of one field of our understanding of the universe.

 

[slingblade]

Agnosticism doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, it merely allows for the possibility of its existence, just as it merely allows for the existence of god. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

With all due respect and civility (see sig), I side with the premise that if a thing exists, it's natural, so supernatural is a meaningless term.
I apologize for disagreeing. It is, apparently, uncivil.

 

[Piggy]

Bigfoot existing doesn't require a fundamental shift in our understanding of the nature of the universe as a whole.

The scope of the consequences of the answer does not change the fact that "Does God exist?" is simply a question about what is or is not part of this universe we live in.

"Did I remember to take out the trash?" and "Will the universe expand forever or reach equilibrium or collapse?" are both non-metaphysical questions about the world we live in, despite the fact that one is fairly trivial while the other has a profound impact on our understanding of the nature of the universe as a whole.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

 

[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.

I understand that, and it does not matter.

The scope of the consequences of the answer is irrelevant.

It's just another question about what does or does not exist, what is or is not real. And we reach the answer the same way.

In this case, the answer is no, it does not exist, it is not real.

 

[wollery]

No, I understand the meaning. I'm just a bit stricter about my epistemology than that. Until someone provides a reason to think something may be true (a VALID reason, which is where religion fails), accepting the possibility that it's true is to accept the arbitrary as a valid concept. That's wrong--the arbitrary has no epistemological value, and should be dismissed entirely.

Once someone provides proof that gods exist, or a logically sound reason for thinking they do, I'll re-evaluate my conclusion about them. Until then, there's no reason to do so, nor is there any reason to allow for even the possibility of their existence--no more so than there is to believe there's a chance four turtles who have mastered martial arts are protecting New York from a giant disembodied brain.

Thank you for proving my point. You have just stated a belief, and admitted that you don't know for certain.

With all due respect and civility (see sig), I side with the premise that if a thing exists, it's natural, so supernatural is a meaningless term.

Your point is well made and well taken.

I apologize for disagreeing. It is, apparently, uncivil.

Not as far as I'm concerned. Civil disagreement is the heart and soul of lively debate, and quite stimulating. If we all agreed on everything the world would be a very dull place.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Us actual atheists seem to be a rather small minority here. Piggy is the only name that comes to my mind, but there are probably a few others I can’t remember (or aren’t aware of).

Agnostic atheism seems to be majority around these parts. Of course there are agnostics and theists of all varieties, as well. And they are welcome as much as anybody (and probably more because they bring different views into the discussions).

Hrumpf.
I'm offended. I thought my high degree of certainty atheism was better known.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agnosticism is logical in that it's pretty impossible to "prove a negative." OTOH, if forced to bet, most agnostics would probably lean toward the "no God" than the "yes God" side of the coin.

You don't need to prove the negative. All you need do is show there is overwhelming evidence that gods are fictional beings humans invented and no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hokulele already posted it, but here's my position.

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.

So if you see a new species of what you are pretty sure is a tree you've not previously encountered, you cannot conclude it is a tree unless you first define that particular tree species?

In other words, is there not a general tree species category? And if there is one, why can there not be a general god category that all gods fit into?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
For a claim that there is a God, we can look at more than just the claim itself. We can look at why someone made the claim in the first place.

This ^.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

So if you see a new species of what you are pretty sure is a tree you've not previously encountered, you cannot conclude it is a tree unless you first define that particular tree species?

In other words, is there not a general tree species category? And if there is one, why can there not be a general god category that all gods fit into?

Because a type of tree is cognitively understandable.

But if you define that word as a mythical being in various texts, then yes you can categorize the subject thusly.

 

[Ausmerican]

Zeus and Thor were Gods of a polytheistic pantheon. When I refer to my agnosticism, I am talking about one G-d. While I may have stated my Jewish cultural roots, when I say "G-d" I'm not just referring to a Biblical G-d but whatever may be "out there".

So god only gets offended if you spell god when you are referring to him and not to any other god?

I get it.
With the other guys it isn't their name, just their job title but with him.... oh, wait.
Nope I dont get it.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Though personally, I always assumed it was out of the whole 10 comandment thing, not to carry god's name in vein, so they don't use anything that could resemble the name. At least that's what local rabbis say.

Is that because they haven't let Jesus into their hearts? Buh-dum-tish!

Sorry. I'll get me hat.

 

[citizenzen]

Zeus and Thor were Gods of a polytheistic pantheon. When I refer to my agnosticism, I am talking about one G-d. While I may have stated my Jewish cultural roots, when I say "G-d" I'm not just referring to a Biblical G-d but whatever may be "out there".

But why didn't you write Z--s and Th-r?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Hrumpf.
I'm offended. I thought my high degree of certainty atheism was better known.

I did say I was probably forgetting some people. It's so hard to keep track, what with people changing user names and avatars and such.