Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Belz...]

Hey, the mods said skeptigirl and skeptic something or other were confusing people. It wasn't my fault.

For people who stop reading words after 7 letters, maybe.

By the way, I seem to sense a pattern in your avatars...

 

[Belz...]

Ah, so it is a false belief in Mods. Is there a Mod? Can there be a Mod who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Can a Mod lead us to salvation? Do you believe in Mods?

Please don't offend me. Write "M-d", next time.

 

[Belz...]

It's a belief, not a lack thereof. Hence, it's based on certain amount of faith.

If you want to consider that trust in science, evidence, and the laws of physics is faith, be my guest.

I consider myself quite justified to deny the existence of the supernatural until someone can show that it exists.

 

[Leumas]

Please don't offend me. Write "M-d", next time.

 

[Rasmus]

I dislike the 100% thing. I'm certain, for all practical and theoretical intents and purposes, that there are no supernatural entities. I am willing to reexamine this conclusion if and when new evidence for these entities is presented, but not until then.

I believe this makes me a "hard" atheist.

Yes. And I would say you share my position.

(And I also dislike the 100% thing. As well as disliking "chance" and "possibility" in the same context. No, it is not possible that there is a god in any meaningful sense of the words used.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes. And I would say you share my position.

(And I also dislike the 100% thing. As well as disliking "chance" and "possibility" in the same context. No, it is not possible that there is a god in any meaningful sense of the words used.)

Instead of agnostic atheist, how about the term atheist fallibilist?

 

[laca]

Well if something is annihilated I wouldn't say it exists. So that one should be easy enough.

Where does it say that a god has to exist now? It's enough for me it existed at some point.

Oh, absolutely. If you allow god to mean 'some vague idea of something somewhere which is just well you know...yeah...cool' then you're going to have problems disproving them. The ignostics are on to something after all.

Yes, I agree. They cut right to the core of the problem. No reason to discuss the idea until a clear and concise definition is given. Problem is nobody ever defines a god clearly enough so that it remains falsifiable. Probably because in that case it will get falsified quite quickly. So agnostic atheist is still a useful label if you ask me.

Because if it's meaningless, how can it be 'god'?

Well, I would call YHWH quite meaningless, even contradictory, yet still billions have no problem calling it a god. Dunno.

I just mean that a lot of these concepts are defined to exist in such a way that their existence and non-existence are not different. A 'god' that exists only in a parallel universe and doesn't interact in any way with this universe at any time for example, doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

Meaning is not a prerequisite to existence.

I'm not sure where this is going, I disagree that relevant for humans needs to be explicitly stated.

Well, we can agree to disagree on this one.

Sometimes. It depends what is meant. In practical terms not running to the store can mean walking to the store or running to somewhere that isn't the store.

Would you draw the same conclusions upon hearing those two sentences?

In practical terms not believing X can only really mean believing not X.

If you mean the decisions/actions taken based on the two, then yes.

 

[laca]

If you want to consider that trust in science, evidence, and the laws of physics is faith, be my guest.

Yes, it is faith. Very well founded faith. Just like believing that gods do not exist.

I consider myself quite justified to deny the existence of the supernatural until someone can show that it exists.

For all practical purposes, we're on the same page. The reason I'm an agnostic atheist is because I can't truthfully answer the question "Can you rule out all gods?" with a "Yes!". Can you?

 

[The Norseman]

Not that I'm grinding this particular axe, but how is this for a non-falsifiable 'god'? - entity created the universe - entity merely observes the universe - entity does not respond to prayer - entity does not intervene in any way with the universe post-creation I don't think I can disprove this (unless of course I have a finite definition of how the universe was created, exclusive of other explanations).

It is simply a construct that if someone feels more 'comfortable' knowing that 'something' is watching over them, its their personal security blanket, nothing more.

Its contrived, yes. And it isn't something that I would agree with. However it also isn't 'wrong', and nor does such a belief system interfere with how one lives their life (ie - such an entity makes no comment about abortion, martyrdom, circumcision, gay marriage etc...) So - perfectly compatible with my atheistic worldview.

Doesn't prove much except a philosophical point.

The problem here is you define what this entity (your words) does rather than what it is.

I can tell you all day long that the Mallkxeksli is yellow on alternating Tuesdays and which grants intercessory prayer, but until we know what Mallkxeksli is, then no meaningful communication can take place.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes, it is faith. Very well founded faith. Just like believing that gods do not exist.

You seem to be defining the word 'faith' so broadly as to render any meaning of the word with no distinction.

For all practical purposes, we're on the same page. The reason I'm an agnostic atheist is because I can't truthfully answer the question "Can you rule out all gods?" with a "Yes!". Can you?

Sure, it's possible for a person to do so; since you fail to define what you mean by '[all] gods' you are then leaving the definition up to the person asked, and by her own internal definition, the answer can be truthfully and satisfactorily answered "yes!"

 

[tsig]

Well, of course it's odorless. Duh...

Orderless farts are the same as non existent....Oh wait.

The fact that someone could be oderlessly farting proves god!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You seem to be defining the word 'faith' so broadly as to render any meaning of the word with no distinction.

How so? Belief is a better word in that situation but serves the same function. We generally define knowledge as justified true belief. Knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc. is based on beliefs that appear to be true (to the closest approximation we can get) and are certainly justified.

Knowledge that gods don't exist seems to follow the same pattern.


We don't speak of any of our knowledge of the world as absolute and I don't think we can speak of our knowledge about the non-existence of gods as absolute. Gods are still a logical possibility, however incredibly unlikely they are.

 

[laca]

You seem to be defining the word 'faith' so broadly as to render any meaning of the word with no distinction.

Could you rephrase that? I'm having trouble parsing it.

As for the first part, I was using faith in the sense: 'confidence or trust in a person or thing'. I thought that was an accepted usage of the word.

Sure, it's possible for a person to do so; since you fail to define what you mean by '[all] gods' you are then leaving the definition up to the person asked, and by her own internal definition, the answer can be truthfully and satisfactorily answered "yes!"

Leaving the definition up to the person asked? I wouldn't think so. It's about any definition. The person who answers a question about 'all gods' based on just their own definition doesn't understand the question.

 

[laca]

Orderless farts are the same as non existent....Oh wait.

The fact that someone could be oderlessly farting proves god!

Now that's an image...

 

[caniswalensis]

Welcome to sillyville- with 2 "l"s.

There are 4 "l"s in sillyville.

 

[The Norseman]

How so? Belief is a better word in that situation but serves the same function. We generally define knowledge as justified true belief. Knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc. is based on beliefs that appear to be true (to the closest approximation we can get) and are certainly justified.

Knowledge that gods don't exist seems to follow the same pattern.


We don't speak of any of our knowledge of the world as absolute and I don't think we can speak of our knowledge about the non-existence of gods as absolute. Gods are still a logical possibility, however incredibly unlikely they are.

Yes, I'm saying I disagree that 'faith' and 'belief' should be conflated to the same meanings, especially when applied to factual statements. But I'm honestly still trying to puzzle these concepts out and I'm sure my expression of my thoughts will improve over time.

 

[The Norseman]

Could you rephrase that? I'm having trouble parsing it.

As for the first part, I was using faith in the sense: 'confidence or trust in a person or thing'. I thought that was an accepted usage of the word.

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.

Leaving the definition up to the person asked? I wouldn't think so. It's about any definition. The person who answers a question about 'all gods' based on just their own definition doesn't understand the question.

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.

 

[Piggy]

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[Piggy]

Not that I'm grinding this particular axe, but how is this for a non-falsifiable 'god'?

- entity created the universe
- entity merely observes the universe
- entity does not respond to prayer
- entity does not intervene in any way with the universe post-creation

Another Humpty-Dumpty god, which is also a non-defined god (you say 2 things it supposedly does, but not what it is), and which cannot be said to be "real" or to "exist".

So this notion also fails to merit consideration.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it is faith. Very well founded faith.

By trying to agree with me AND maintain the use of the word "faith", I believe you have just concocted an oxymoron.

For all practical purposes, we're on the same page. The reason I'm an agnostic atheist is because I can't truthfully answer the question "Can you rule out all gods?" with a "Yes!". Can you?

As I said just a few posts ago: for all practical intents and purposes, yes.