Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[T'ai Chi]

Since when is ' non-belief ' a doctrine?

Books on atheism are usually found in the philosophy or religion section of any bookstore.

While probably not a doctrine in the sense of "religion" and dogma, certainly doctrine in the sense of teaching, instruction, something that is taught, or a principle or position of the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system.

 

[Tricky]

Without labels, it's really hard to communicate effectively:

"Hey you! Give that guy that thing over by that other thing with the blue thing. And make sure you don't forget to twist that round thing with the nubs and the things on it."

Exactly.

Communication involves making some assumptions. Why do we have this necessityl to verify everything at "100%"? Most people (other than fundamentalists) understand that whatever you say is what you believe, not a statement of irrefutable fact.

Although I have sometimes called people on saying things that sound like they are claiming knowledge, I recognize that in common parlance, one can assume that what one says is simply their opinion and that rarely would they claim total adherence to any statement they have made.

So I'm going to try not to nitpick so much and address the central issues. It's hard, I admit, because definition of terms is so important to the discussion. But it does seem that too many of these dicussions get sidelined into minutae.

 

[Ausmerican]

Another way of looking at this question is what seperates a Christian (or a member of any other religion) from an agnostic?

Just as one can say that an 'atheist' cannot KNOW that there is no god & is therefore an agnostic, no member of any religion can KNOW that there is a god so they are therefore agnostic too.

So, looking at the question that way it means everyone is agnostic so our labels are all we have to keep our groups apart which makes 'atheist' at least as valid as 'christian' as a label does it not?

 

[Tricky]

Another way of looking at this question is what seperates a Christian (or a member of any other religion) from an agnostic?

Just as one can say that an 'atheist' cannot KNOW that there is no god & is therefore an agnostic, no member of any religion can KNOW that there is a god so they are therefore agnostic too.

So, looking at the question that way it means everyone is agnostic so our labels are all we have to keep our groups apart which makes 'atheist' at least as valid as 'christian' as a label does it not?

You expose a logical truth. Nobody can "know" anything with 100% certainty, even if they "believe" they do. As such, all of us are, technically, "agnostics" about everyting, simply because we lack total knowledge.

So really, agnosticism is a meaningless term. Nothing is truly known, but only evidenced.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

What are you talking about? Who said anything about me being the final word on anything?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, "complete nonsense" seems to inhibit further discussion.

Hardly. For example, you could attempt to address my explanation of why I think it is nonsense, and explain how it is actually sensable.

This is completely untrue. I have explained and defended my position here many times, and you know it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we've arrived at, many times, is your stance that your position is to declare the choices meaningless.

And? Clearly this constitutes a position other than the three choices you mentioned. One which has been both explained to you, and defended by me. I rest my case.

Baloney. Not only are those laughably oversimplified portrayals of those positions, but they are not, as you claim, in any way the historical view of materialism and idealism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try an alternative portrayal that does not collapse into one of the 3 positions as I state them.

Read any book on these philosophical positions, and you will find several.

So what? So this directly contradicts your assertion that one must be an idealist or dualist in order to not be an atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say one had to recognize one's position, so I don't agree.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? If somebody is not an atheist than they are an idealist or dualist, whether they happen to agree with those positions or not? Like I said before, this is complete nonsense.

Logical tautologies do not count, because they are not actually claims about reality, although you very well may phrase them in such a way as to be.

Case in point: The statement "thought exist" is only meaningful if you define the terms "though" and "exist". I would say that if you are 100% certain that though exists, then we have 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You have never bothered to formulate a formal definition for those terms, and are using them in a purely intuitive way. If this is the case, then your statement is incoherent, and thus irrelevant.

(2) You have defined thought and existence in such a way that the existence of thought is a tautology. In this case your certainty that thought exists is no different than my certainty that dogs are mammals. It is true by virtue of how we define the terms being used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpy, may I just say, Horse-Chit!

If thought does not exist, then what are we doing? Or, what does "something" "think" we are doing?

It is painfully obvious that you either did not carefully read what I wrote above, or that you completely misunderstood it. At no point did I assert that thoughts do not exist. Please read what I said again, and if there is anything unclear, ask me to clarify it.


Davidsmith,

Now naturally not everybody is going to define those terms that way, but if you do not define "thought" and "exists" in such a way that the phrase "thoughts exist" is a tautology, then you are not logically justified in being 100% certain that thoughts exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

eh? don't you mean if you do define "thought" and "exists" in such a way that the phrase "thoughts exist" is a tautology, then you are not logically justified in being 100% certain that thoughts exist.

No. If "thoughts exist" is a logical tautology, then you are justified in being 100% certain that it is true. If it is a claim about reality, then you are not. Which of those it is (if either) depends on how you specifically define those terms.


jzs,

You mean judging from your interpretation of her quote. She never said she was 100% certain, either. Those of us who clearly understand that there is no such thing as 100% certainty of facts about reality, usually do not find it necessary to qualify every statement we make with "it is highly probable that...".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you do. You qualified it. You said you believe and that you are not 100% certain. She didn't.

What's your point? I don't always qualify my statements that way. In fact, I almost never do. The only time I even bother to do so is when I am dealing with people who don't understand that absolute certainty of claims about the world are impossible to logically justify, or people who have erroneously attributed a position of absolute certainty to me.

Because I can't read her mind nor ask her questions, I have to go with what she wrote, her actual words. She said, and I quote, that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any". There are none, nor can there be any. Period. That is obviously 100% clear. No fidgiting with interpretation here.

Nonsense. You are applying an interpretation. Do you always assume that people are 100% certain of something when they make statements of fact? I certainly don't. I only assume that they are confident enough of the truth of what they have said, to not feel it necessary to qualify the statement with something like "It think that..." or "I'm pretty sure that..." etc...


Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

Hardly. For example, you could attempt to address my explanation of why I think it is nonsense, and explain how it is actually sensable.

You said "Not only does this presuppose that dualism and idealism are the only alternatives to the non-existence of god, but it also presupposes that one must be 100% certain that dualism and idealism are false, in order to hold some position other than them."

That explains why you 'think' it to be nonsense, which sheds no light on why it *is* nonsense.

Of course, what I said was that one who is not 100% certain idealism is wrong is at best a dualist, and ditto for the ~idealist.

And? Clearly this constitutes a position other than the three choices you mentioned. One which has been both explained to you, and defended by me. I rest my case.

And I state that you have never proposed an alternative to mind, body, or both -- that does not in essence collapse into one of these 3 positions. I'd classify "It doesn't matter" as dualism.

Read any book on these philosophical positions, and you will find several.

I've read a few, and have not found any -- again, that in essence are not encompassed by the 3 I use -- and certainly not several.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? If somebody is not an atheist than they are an idealist or dualist, whether they happen to agree with those positions or not? Like I said before, this is complete nonsense.

It's certainly nonsensical to admit, consciously to yourself, what your beliefs entail.

It is painfully obvious that you either did not carefully read what I wrote above, or that you completely misunderstood it. At no point did I assert that thoughts do not exist. Please read what I said again, and if there is anything unclear, ask me to clarify it.

I didn't misunderstand it. I just find it puerile, but if you are happy with that bit of misdirection, so be it.

"Thought" doesn't "exist" for Stimpy, define those terms as you will.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

Hardly. For example, you could attempt to address my explanation of why I think it is nonsense, and explain how it is actually sensable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said "Not only does this presuppose that dualism and idealism are the only alternatives to the non-existence of god, but it also presupposes that one must be 100% certain that dualism and idealism are false, in order to hold some position other than them."

That explains why you 'think' it to be nonsense, which sheds no light on why it *is* nonsense.

What on earth are you talking about? Would you please at least try to make your posts intelligible?

Of course, what I said was that one who is not 100% certain idealism is wrong is at best a dualist, and ditto for the ~idealist.

You can say it all you like. It is still complete nonsense. If I do not agree with the claims of dualism, then I am not a dualist. It's just that simple. Whether or not I happen to be 100% certain that idealism is false, is simply irrelevant to the issue.

And? Clearly this constitutes a position other than the three choices you mentioned. One which has been both explained to you, and defended by me. I rest my case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I state that you have never proposed an alternative to mind, body, or both -- that does not in essence collapse into one of these 3 positions. I'd classify "It doesn't matter" as dualism.

Then you are being ridiculous, because that position in no way qualifies as any form of dualism. I am beginning to think that you are just making this drivel up as you go.

Read any book on these philosophical positions, and you will find several.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've read a few, and have not found any -- again, that in essence are not encompassed by the 3 I use -- and certainly not several.

Apparently this is because you simply put every position you hear about into one of these three categories without any regard to whether or not the position actually has anything to do with that category.

I could claim that all colors are either blue, green, or red, and then insist that yellow is just green, and that pink is just red, but I would still be talking complete nonsense, just as you are.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? If somebody is not an atheist than they are an idealist or dualist, whether they happen to agree with those positions or not? Like I said before, this is complete nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's certainly nonsensical to admit, consciously to yourself, what your beliefs entail.

My beliefs do not entail idealism, nor do they entail (metaphysical) materialism, nor do they entail any form of dualism. I am therefore not any of the three, no matter how much you want me to be. Deal with it.

It is painfully obvious that you either did not carefully read what I wrote above, or that you completely misunderstood it. At no point did I assert that thoughts do not exist. Please read what I said again, and if there is anything unclear, ask me to clarify it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't misunderstand it. I just find it puerile, but if you are happy with that bit of misdirection, so be it.

How is it puerile? How is it misdirection? Can you support any of this garbage you are inflicting on this thread with any kind of argument? So far all I have seen are completely unjustified claims, and incoherent text.


Dr. Stupid

 

[T'ai Chi]

What's your point? I don't always qualify my statements that way. In fact, I almost never do.

The point is is that you did. She didn't. I can only go by what she wrote, and she made it pretty clear that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any".

Nonsense. You are applying an interpretation.

Nonsense, yes, but it is all your nonsense. How can I interpret "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any" and other way than to say that she thought no supernatural things exist nor is it possible for them to exist, ever?

I only assume that they are confident enough of the truth of what they have said, to not feel it necessary to qualify the statement with something like "It think that..." or "I'm pretty sure that..." etc...

I'm not willing to make assumptions on what the person thought. I can only go by her clear statement above and not try and fidgit with the meaning like you are trying to do.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I can do the same statement. There are not supernatural forces and can be ever. It's the same reason I would say that there is not a red dragon behind me. I just turned around and there is none. I did it again and there is none yet. And I don't think that it will be ever, but it is possible that the dragon appears just when I'm not looking around or it would appear tomorrow night. Its possible, but the possibility is so close to 0 that i would feel pretty stupid if somebody asked me about the dragon and I say "I don't know, it could be but I'm not seeing it now. Maybe it is hidding or maybe it's not but I can't decide".
I'd rather answer to that question with an "Are you f****ng nuts"

 

[T'ai Chi]

I can do the same statement. There are not supernatural forces and can be ever. It's the same reason I would say that there is not a red dragon behind me. I just turned around and there is none. I did it again and there is none yet. And I don't think that it will be ever, but it is possible that the dragon appears just when I'm not looking around or it would appear tomorrow night.

You just modified your statement though.

First you said there are not supernatural forces and nor can there be. Then you went on to say that it is possible. You are changing your story as you go.

Saying it is possible but there is no evidence is NOT the same as saying that there are no supernatural things nor can there ever be.

 

[CFLarsen]

You just modified your statement though.

First you said there are not supernatural forces and nor can there be. Then you went on to say that it is possible. You are changing your story as you go.

Saying it is possible but there is no evidence is NOT the same as saying that there are no supernatural things nor can there ever be.

It could also be that Lucifuge doesn't speak perfect English.

You are very quick to point your finger accusingly at other people, T'ai. Very unbecoming.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

jzs,

The point is is that you did. She didn't. I can only go by what she wrote, and she made it pretty clear that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any".

Yes, she made it very clear that this is what she thinks is true. She did not, in any way, make it clear, or even imply, that she is 100% certain that it is true.

Nonsense. You are applying an interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense, yes, but it is all your nonsense. How can I interpret "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any" and other way than to say that she thought no supernatural things exist nor is it possible for them to exist, ever?

You could interpret it to mean that she thought that no supernatural things exist, nor would they ever. After all, that is what people usually mean when they make statements of fact. Very rarely do they mean that they 100% certain, and when they do, they usually qualify the statement by saying so.

I only assume that they are confident enough of the truth of what they have said, to not feel it necessary to qualify the statement with something like "It think that..." or "I'm pretty sure that..." etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not willing to make assumptions on what the person thought. I can only go by her clear statement above and not try and fidgit with the meaning like you are trying to do.

This is ridiculous. It is directly obvious that you have made assumptions about what she thought, by virtue of the fact the fact that she did not explicitly state that she was 100% certain of it. Not only that, but for you to assert that you have not made an interpretation of what she said, is ludicrous in consideration of the fact that the interpretation you have made is the most extreme interpretation of that statement that could be made.

People make statements of fact all the time. They hardly ever intend to imply that they are 100% certain of those facts.

Case in point. You have just stated that I am trying to fidgit with the meaning of what she said. Are you 100% certain of this? Do you think that it is impossible that I may genuinely believe what I am saying? Are you 100% certain that I am actually trying to fidgit with meaning, and not in fact attempting to make what I think is a valid argument?

Like I said, this is ridiculous. The incredible irony of this is that you have accused somebody of making a statement which is logically indefensible, when in fact your own accusation is logically indefensible.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

The ridiculousness of this assertion becomes even more blatant when we include the context of the statement, rather than simply presenting it by itself. Indeed, the fact that jzs has been arguing as though this statement were made as a statement of fact, indicates that either jzs did not read the surrounding text, or is deliberately misrepresenting the quote.

Here is some of the surrounding text of the quote:

We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.

Gee wiz. Looks to me like she was making a statement about the philosophical position of materialism, and not a direct statement of fact, as jzs has claimed.

I suppose one could claim that since she is an atheist, and says that atheism is based on this philosophical position, that she is implying that she is 100% certain that the philosophical position is true, but that is quite a stretch.

In any event, it is pretty clear that jzs's argument is at best invalid, and at worst, intentionally dishonest.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Books on atheism are usually found in the philosophy or religion section of any bookstore.

While probably not a doctrine in the sense of "religion" and dogma, certainly doctrine in the sense of teaching, instruction, something that is taught, or a principle or position of the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system.

Only in the same sense as one might consider deprogramming a cult member, etc..


I don't believe you will find very many Athiests who claim to have ' studied ' Atheism, and followed a path that brought them to the point of calling themself ' Atheist '...

 

[burgerjockey]

Another way of looking at this question is what seperates a Christian (or a member of any other religion) from an agnostic?

Just as one can say that an 'atheist' cannot KNOW that there is no god & is therefore an agnostic, no member of any religion can KNOW that there is a god so they are therefore agnostic too.

So, looking at the question that way it means everyone is agnostic so our labels are all we have to keep our groups apart which makes 'atheist' at least as valid as 'christian' as a label does it not?

I had never exactly looked at it like that. Since everyone is an agnostic it really does make it a term that is quite pointless.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

You just modified your statement though.

First you said there are not supernatural forces and nor can there be. Then you went on to say that it is possible. You are changing your story as you go.

Saying it is possible but there is no evidence is NOT the same as saying that there are no supernatural things nor can there ever be. [/B]

I'm not modifying it. I'm saying that there are not supernatural forces and nor can be. The rest is not the statement, is simply an addendum than can be added to any of my affirmations, even to "I AM". Maybe I don't exist but I don't entertain the possibilty, just like I don't entertain the possibility of the existence of god.

Let me ask you : Maybe you know that there is not a god, but just when you try to articulate it you are forced to say "I don't know" by an unknowable force. Can it be?

 

[KelvinG]

Another way of looking at this question is what seperates a Christian (or a member of any other religion) from an agnostic?

Just as one can say that an 'atheist' cannot KNOW that there is no god & is therefore an agnostic, no member of any religion can KNOW that there is a god so they are therefore agnostic too.

So, looking at the question that way it means everyone is agnostic so our labels are all we have to keep our groups apart which makes 'atheist' at least as valid as 'christian' as a label does it not?

Your post makes total sense.

However, don't expect many Christians to agree. Us evil atheists are supposed to admit we can't actually be 100% sure there is a God, so we are agnostic. And then the Christian holds up his arms and says "Yah, I got the evil atheist to admit he wasn't 100% sure. He's agnostic."
However, the wonderful thing called "faith" allows the Christian (or insert favourite religion) to declare themselves, without doubt, a theist.

The idea is that if you invoke "faith" into the argument, you are allowed to let logic, reason, and evidence fly out the window. You are not longer subjected to the same ugly rules that the evil atheist is forced to follow.

 

[hammegk]

The 100% problem is why I contend "materialism" (shall we say body) is not comparible with any stance other than full atheism.

Idealism is a logical position for an agnostic. And Dualism (although internally inconsistent) otherwise doesn't directly contradict agnosticism.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't think "agnosticism" needs to be a meaningless term. Certainly, nothing can be known 100%...but I think there is a marked difference between those who know this and therefore choose not to make any judgement at all, and those who know it and decide, pending further evidence, to uphold the null hypothesis.

 

[Checkmite]

The 100% problem is why I contend "materialism" (shall we say body) is not comparible with any stance other than full atheism.

I disagree. Deism does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the First Cause was a natural event.