Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Belz...]

There is no evidence either way.

Yes, there is. Your ignorance of said evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Complexity]

Complexity stated his opinion of her beliefs; I don't recall him making any assumptions about the importance of that opinion. I also don't think he cares if it matters to others. It may be arrogant, but some of us think that the belief in a higher power for which there is no evidence is also arrogant, when those believers also insist on defining the intent and attributes of this higher power. It's like me saying that Superman might exist, and if he does he's definitely a Yankees fan.

^ This

Thank you.

 

[dafydd]

Up til now, you've literally been talking about nothing.

We're used to that from punshhh.

 

[dafydd]

Sounds like a good analogy for the big bang.

The Big bang took place. The idea was not pulled from somebody's nether regions, unlike your ideas. You really must stop making these gnomic statements. Why is it a good analogy.?

 

[FattyCatty]

Oh good, then you accept my statement "there is no g-d" since that is an informed judgment.

No, that is an opinion. I don't consider that to be an "informed judgement" because there are no facts or evidence to inform your belief that there is no god. I also agree that there is no evidence to inform my belief that there is a God, which makes that my opinion/belief.

We may not be using the same definition of "arrogant", then.

Possibly. I think my use fits either of the definitions from Merriam-Webster:

1: exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>
2: showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance <an arrogant reply>

No. It's simply a statement of fact. Intolerance, for example, is unacceptable to me. Is that arrogant?

I can only say that it seemed arrogant to me, perhaps because of the tone of the whole post. It is one thing to say "this is what I believe" or "I don't believe this"; it is another thing to say that "your belief is unacceptable to me; if you believe that you lack intelligence and integrity" when you are talking about opinions.

No, it doesn't. One of the two choices is clearly wrong and the other clearly agrees with the evidence. The two are beliefs in the sense that the conclusion might NOT be based on evidence either way (the person who beliefs the Earth orbits a star called "the sun" might do so only because he was told so), but they are NOT equal.

As I have said, if you say the earth orbits the sun as a statement backed by evidence, it's not an opinion, it's knowledge. If you say it just because or because someone told you (with no evidence), then it is an opinion with no greater validity than my opinion (also formed just because or because someone told me it was so).

Well... if you redefine the terms you use, of course you can consider whatever you like.

Opinion is defined in Merriam-Webster as:

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

In Oxford Dictionaries, it is defined as:

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

I’m writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance
that, in my opinion, is dead right​

<snip>

I don't think that my use of opinion is out of line with the definition(s) of the word.

But let's make my point clearer:

Lamarckism was not a stupid theory. But it is now known to be wrong. Was it an opinion ? Was it a belief ? Was it equal to the alternative ?

It was knowledge that was later shown to be incomplete or false. When people thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that was based on the evidence they had. It was knowledge of how things worked. As more evidence came in and showed that the previous evidence was wrong, the knowledge of how the sun and the earth were related changed. Isn't this a constant process in science, as new evidence changes previous knowledge of how something works?

Complexity stated his opinion of her beliefs; I don't recall him making any assumptions about the importance of that opinion. I also don't think he cares if it matters to others. It may be arrogant, but some of us think that the belief in a higher power for which there is no evidence is also arrogant, when those believers also insist on defining the intent and attributes of this higher power. It's like me saying that Superman might exist, and if he does he's definitely a Yankees fan.

Complexity also impugned her intelligence and integrity for a trivial reason. And I consider it just as arrogant to say that there can be no higher power when there is no evidence to show that absence (how can you prove a negative?) and because I believe "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). As Francis S. Collins said in a Pew Forum lecture:

<snip>Of course, from my perspective, having been an atheist and traveled this path, it seems to me that atheism is, of all of the choices, the least rational because it assumes that you know enough to exclude the possibility of God. And which of us could claim we know enough to make such a grand statement? Suppose the knowledge of God just happens to be outside of your little circle of understanding? Then would it not be the height of arrogance to say, I know there is no God? G.K. Chesterton says this quite nicely: “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, the assertion of a universal negative.”
<snip>

 

[The Norseman]

Yes it has two things in common with humans, reason and manipulation.

You have yet to describe what it is that can have the attributes of 'reason' and 'manipulation' first.

I can only speculate, the fact that I don't know or humanity has not detected it does not necessarily mean it does not happen, only that it has not been observed.

You have been doing more than mere speculation, however and that is the part that I would hazard to guess is what most people here are trying to point out to you.

 

[The Norseman]

No, that is an opinion. I don't consider that to be an "informed judgement" because there are no facts or evidence to inform your belief that there is no god. I also agree that there is no evidence to inform my belief that there is a God, which makes that my opinion/belief.

You keep trying to reduce an informed opinion to the level of uninformed speculation and opinion.

There is a great deal of evidence that the god of the Torah does not exist.

If you have other gods you'd like to discuss, that's fine.

 

[Complexity]

Complexity also impugned her intelligence and integrity for a trivial reason.

Nonsense.

I have a great detector for BS, lies, and deception (self- and otherwise).

I think I was right on the mark with regards to the OP writer.

I am utterly unconcerned with your outrage and complaints.

Deal with it.

 

[Belz...]

I can only say that it seemed arrogant to me, perhaps because of the tone of the whole post.

Fair enough. I disagree but, ok.

It is one thing to say "this is what I believe" or "I don't believe this"; it is another thing to say that "your belief is unacceptable to me"

It's not the same thing, of course. But lots of things are unacceptable to me. Or you.

if you believe that you lack intelligence and integrity" when you are talking about opinions.

Of course. I didn't say it wasn't his opinion. I just disagree that opinions are all equal. Or that beliefs are all equal, for that matter.

If you say it just because or because someone told you (with no evidence), then it is an opinion with no greater validity than my opinion (also formed just because or because someone told me it was so).

But that's the thing. It's an opinion/belief because it's not based on evidence, but since it's actually true (or at least, more likely to be true), then it's actually more valid than one that is not. That the person who believes knows that his belief is true or not has no bearing on this.

When people thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that was based on the evidence they had. It was knowledge of how things worked. As more evidence came in and showed that the previous evidence was wrong, the knowledge of how the sun and the earth were related changed. Isn't this a constant process in science, as new evidence changes previous knowledge of how something works?

Right. The geocentric theory was false. The heliocentric one was better. They were not equal even before the evidence was in, and they were certainly not equal after, even when people continued to cling to either, for any number of reasons.

 

[punshhh]

Nonsense.

I have a great detector for BS, lies, and deception (self- and otherwise).

I think I was right on the mark with regards to the OP writer.

I am utterly unconcerned with your outrage and complaints.

Deal with it.

Wash your mouth out with soap!

 

[tsig]

Yes it has two things in common with humans, reason and manipulation.

And it needs a tool chest. Your god is looking a lot like you.

 

[tsig]

I can only speculate, the fact that I don't know or humanity has not detected it does not necessarily mean it does not happen, only that it has not been observed.

I realise this and continue to speculate.

Perhaps it was done during the big bang event. A bias in the spin of the universe as it emerged like a googly in cricket.

So not being observed by mankind is proof of it's existence?

 

[tsig]

Yes this is the bottom line and is the only way to be certain, I agree. This practice is fundamental to science and how we go about our physical lives.

However it is not very usefull when considering questions regarding existence itself. It can help to outline the issues through formal logic, but little more.

It certainly cannot state that there is no wookie on another planet, in another galaxy or in another universe. Or for that matter on the end of our noses.

Why? You toss the most useful tool humans have invented out of the toolbox then complain that humans can't answer the question.

 

[dafydd]

So not being observed by mankind is proof of it's existence?

In the punshhhiverse,yes.

 

[tsig]

No, that is an opinion. I don't consider that to be an "informed judgement" because there are no facts or evidence to inform your belief that there is no god. I also agree that there is no evidence to inform my belief that there is a God, which makes that my opinion/belief.


:

It's the lack of facts and evidence for god that informs my judgment that there is no god.

There is also the fact that there are as many definitions of god as there are believers that lead me to the conclusion that they are deluding themselves.

 

[tsig]

Nonsense.

I have a great detector for BS, lies, and deception (self- and otherwise).

I think I was right on the mark with regards to the OP writer.

I am utterly unconcerned with your outrage and complaints.

Deal with it.

When someone tells me they don't believe in g-d I am doubtful.

 

[slingblade]

@Fatty Catty:

I have recently noticed (which does not mean it recently happened) that you have changed your stance on religious belief. I may not accurately articulate all my points, so please do note that I am attempting to.

It appears from what little I have read, that you believe in a god. I assume it's the Christian god? Please correct me if necessary, and also please forgive me in advance for any statements I make based on this assumption if it's erroneous.

You appear to have more than a slight concern that you, the person, will be rejected by the atheists on this board, because of your religious beliefs.

Obviously, I cannot speak for all the atheists here, and should not. But I'd like you to know that I do not and will not reject you for your religious beliefs. I like you.

However, I do reject religious belief. I do not ascribe to it, and do not find it is reasonable for me to ascribe to it. If in the context of discussion we reject each other's reasoning, in whole or in part, on this topic, I want you to know it doesn't in any way indicate my rejection of you. To do that, for me to reject you, would require considerable negative input that I don't see forthcoming.

Neither of us can really help the fact that we disagree fundamentally on this issue. Because I consider gods to be imaginary constructs created by humans, I'm afraid I do find it silly to ascribe to them. Then again, I find a lot of things silly that people do.

I'd imagine my feelings don't make you feel good or comfortable. I apologize. By the same token, people who reject my atheism as a negative don't exactly make me feel good or comfortable. It's almost impossible for either of us to engage each other, or other people, on these topics without creating some negative feelings. In spite of that, I really don't mean to harm you.

Not that it matters to anyone but me, nor should it really, but I don't care that you believe in god. It doesn't change my opinion of you as a kind, decent, honest person. By the same token, I'd hope you can see me as a kind, decent, honest person in spite of my lack of belief in god. I will never tell you I think you shouldn't or cannot hold your belief. I will never tell you to change. But I will also not be agreeing with you on certain, probably many, points regarding it.

What I really don't want is people coming in to tell me, "Not only are you wrong, but you need to change and think like me so I can see you as being right."

I can totally handle, "I think what you think is wrong, and here's why!" That's fine with me. Similarly, I say, "I think what you think is wrong, and here's why!"

As long as we don't end those statements with "and you need to change and think like me so I can see you as being right," I think we won't have any problems, really. I won't change for you. I don't expect you to change for me, and would never ask you to.

But you aren't going to get much more support here for theistic beliefs than I would expect to get on a Christian forum for my atheist lack of belief. That's just the way it works.

I just want to reassure you that while I reject the belief, I don't reject my friend who holds it. I think that's important to you, and you want to hear it, so I want to offer it to you.

Also,

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No one on this forum is going to make you unwelcome because you are 'Jewish' in some regard.

Now, now. Don't forget about MaGZ.

 

[Daald]

Yes this is the bottom line and is the only way to be certain, I agree. This practice is fundamental to science and how we go about our physical lives.

However it is not very usefull when considering questions regarding existence itself. It can help to outline the issues through formal logic, but little more.

It certainly cannot state that there is no wookie on another planet, in another galaxy or in another universe. Or for that matter on the end of our noses.

Okay, that's fine then. We will go about with our fundamental practice and apply it to the god question to come to the conclusion "There is no god." You will continue to approach the question in any way you like but inn the end the burden of proof is on you and you will have to use those fundamental practices to show us this god if you care enough to.

 

[FattyCatty]

@Fatty Catty:

I have recently noticed (which does not mean it recently happened) that you have changed your stance on religious belief. I may not accurately articulate all my points, so please do note that I am attempting to.

Slingblade, what a nice post to read on Thanksgiving; I'm grateful for it. You always manage to make me feel better. I'll try to address the points in your post; I apologize if I don't explain clearly, as I'm still feeling my way with this.

Yes, I have changed my stance on religious belief. Some of the change is recent. I used to be agnostic/never think about it except to say that I don't believe in organized religion (which was my answer to door-to-door missionaries for years and stopped them very nicely).

Then I started thinking maybe I was missing something and that maybe there was a god. So I decided I would go to various (Christian) churches in the area and read up on the religions (about which I am remarkably ignorant). None of the preachers were particularly inspiring; each of the religions I briefly read about had things I couldn't believe. So that phase ended and I went back to not thinking about what I felt or believed about religion/belief/god.

When I joined the JREF Forum last year, I started reading about people's beliefs and about arguments for and against the existence of god(s). My contrary nature made me revolt against some of the atheist posturing I saw and want to be on the other side. So I started thinking about the existence of a god. More reading on the Forum, more reading of things suggested by the Forum, led to finding reasons to believe a god existed.

It appears from what little I have read, that you believe in a god. I assume it's the Christian god? Please correct me if necessary, and also please forgive me in advance for any statements I make based on this assumption if it's erroneous.

I'm still trying to figure out what I believe, other than that there is a god who created the universe in such a way that the laws of nature were in effect, and that life could evolve into something that could ask questions about the universe and figure out those laws. I don't know if I believe in the Christian God. Because I have always lived in a predominantly Christian country, my ideas are probably based on that. But I've never read the bible (except the Book of John when I took ancient Greek), so I don't know what it says. I've only been to church a handful of times in my life, so I don't know what various Christian religions say. I have lots of reading ahead and lots to learn.

You appear to have more than a slight concern that you, the person, will be rejected by the atheists on this board, because of your religious beliefs.

I do have some concerns about being rejected for believing in God. Or if not rejected, sneered at, called names, and assumed to lack intelligence. Because I'm still figuring out what I believe, and because I'm still learning how to argue and to see fallacies, I'm not well equipped yet to defend my beliefs. I am, however, very stubborn, and learning.

Obviously, I cannot speak for all the atheists here, and should not. But I'd like you to know that I do not and will not reject you for your religious beliefs. I like you.

Thank you. I like you too (and admire your writing ability very much).

However, I do reject religious belief. I do not ascribe to it, and do not find it is reasonable for me to ascribe to it. If in the context of discussion we reject each other's reasoning, in whole or in part, on this topic, I want you to know it doesn't in any way indicate my rejection of you. To do that, for me to reject you, would require considerable negative input that I don't see forthcoming.

I understand and appreciate that you distinguish between the belief and the person. I am a believer in "actions speak louder than words" in most cases, and don't worry about religious beliefs or lack thereof unless they lead to harm.

Neither of us can really help the fact that we disagree fundamentally on this issue. Because I consider gods to be imaginary constructs created by humans, I'm afraid I do find it silly to ascribe to them. Then again, I find a lot of things silly that people do.

I can understand that. I guess I would hope for a distinction between "that's a silly thing you're doing by believing" and "you're a silly person for believing." You seem to be making that distinction.

I'd imagine my feelings don't make you feel good or comfortable. I apologize. By the same token, people who reject my atheism as a negative don't exactly make me feel good or comfortable. It's almost impossible for either of us to engage each other, or other people, on these topics without creating some negative feelings. In spite of that, I really don't mean to harm you.

You have no reason nor need to apologize for your feelings. You are as entitled to your feelings/opinions/beliefs as I am to mine and I wouldn't consider that I have any right to judge/accept/reject them. I might disagree with them and with your reasons for having them, but that has nothing to do with your right to have them. I appreciate that you have no intention to harm.

Not that it matters to anyone but me, nor should it really, but I don't care that you believe in god. It doesn't change my opinion of you as a kind, decent, honest person. By the same token, I'd hope you can see me as a kind, decent, honest person in spite of my lack of belief in god. I will never tell you I think you shouldn't or cannot hold your belief. I will never tell you to change. But I will also not be agreeing with you on certain, probably many, points regarding it.

Of course your lack of belief in a god doesn't change the fact that you are a kind, decent, honest person. You are you. What you believe is just one part of you, and, to my mind, much less important than how you behave - in your case, as a kind, decent, honest person who goes out of her way to make others feel better. I would never tell you that you had to believe in a god. You have every right to a lack of belief in a god, just as I have every right to a belief in a god. We are free to disagree and to argue about the reasons, but the right remains.

What I really don't want is people coming in to tell me, "Not only are you wrong, but you need to change and think like me so I can see you as being right."

I can totally handle, "I think what you think is wrong, and here's why!" That's fine with me. Similarly, I say, "I think what you think is wrong, and here's why!"

I agree with this; it works both ways. What doesn't work for me, as I mentioned before is the people - not you - who go from "I think what you think is wrong" to "therefore you are stupid/deluded/etc."

As long as we don't end those statements with "and you need to change and think like me so I can see you as being right," I think we won't have any problems, really. I won't change for you. I don't expect you to change for me, and would never ask you to.

Ditto. I don't see any problems except for the fact that you are a better arguer than I am. But that just means I have to learn more and practice. I'm still working through the Oxford Critical Reasoning podcasts, so watch out.

But you aren't going to get much more support here for theistic beliefs than I would expect to get on a Christian forum for my atheist lack of belief. That's just the way it works.

I was disappointed with the attitude of some posters in this forum. I suppose that was a result of my unfamiliarity with other forums.

I just want to reassure you that while I reject the belief, I don't reject my friend who holds it. I think that's important to you, and you want to hear it, so I want to offer it to you.

Also,

Thank you again. It is important to hear, and it makes this Thanksgiving more special to me.

Hugs back, and Happy Thanksgiving. Have a safe trip west.