• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Define “Agnostic”

ynot said:
Short post/question so I will answer, but not answering for David Mo.

Do I believe in fairy tales and science fiction? = No.
Do I believe fairy tales and science fiction exist purely as forms of fantasy entertainment? = Yes.

That they exist purely as forms of fantasy entertainment in no way or measure makes them any more likely to exist in reality.
Click to expand...


Why this curious aversion of yours for long posts? Do you have some kind of a medical condition, some particular variation of dyslexia, some particular kind of attention deficit disorder, something like that? Or might it be that you use a phone, as opposed to a regular computer, so that larger posts are relatively difficult for you to handle?

I’m not being snarky in asking this! And nor do I mean to be at all rude. Just curious.
 
ynot said:
Short post/question so I will answer, but not answering for David Mo.

Do I believe in fairy tales and science fiction? = No.Do I believe fairy tales and science fiction exist purely as forms of fantasy entertainment? = Yes.

That they exist purely as forms of fantasy entertainment in no way or measure makes them any more likely to exist in reality.
Click to expand...


And yet there are plenty of individual components in SF, individual descriptions of things and conditions in SF, that are closely modeled on reality, that is, they actually reflect reality (or what reality might, realistically, turn out to be going forward). That is especially true of the so-called “hard” science fiction. Arthur Clarke, for instance.

This came up -- my post that you responded to -- when David Mo equated belief in Gods with belief in centaurs, so that I pointed out to him that this wasn’t comparing apples to apples. A more symmetrical comparison would be if one compared belief in centaurs to belief in the Yahweh-God, for instance, or if one compared belief in God (in general) to belief in science fiction (in general). That is, compare specifics with specifics, and broad generalizations with broad generalizations, like with like.

To the extent that he (or you, or anyone) can rightly say you/they do not, with good reason, believe in science fiction (in general), I guess I (or anyone else) can rightly say, with justification, that I/we do not, with good reason, believe in God (in general).

This was a discussion not so much about soft and hard atheism, as about atheism and igtheism. Igtheists are atheists too, but using the term “igtheist” clarifies one’s sense, one’s meaning. (Much like the word term “hard SF” that I’d used within this post. Much like any nuance does.) It’s a distinction that aficionados, those with an interest in the subject (in any subject), would find meaningful ; and those without are free to ignore.
 
David Mo said:
(A pleasure trip).

I can't believe in science fiction or fairy tales because they are fiction by definition. I think the question is not well posed.
(...)
Click to expand...


And yet -- as I was saying to ynot just now -- SF, especially hard SF (but occasionally out and out romances as well) sometimes contains elements that are closely modeled on reality, or on what reality might plausibly look like in future. You sometimes get SF written by knowledgeable writers, sometimes people who're well trained in science themselves, and who're deliberately going for verisimilitude, so that much of what they describe is "true", and it would be foolish to dismiss them merely because you found these descriptions in a book of SF.

My point is, the God question is so vast, and includes so many different variations (some of which are plain wrong, without a shadow of a doubt ; some that are wholly unfalsifiable, so that rather than go into right or wrong one dismisses them in the absence of compelling evidence ; and some that well might contain elements of truth. Like SF, to dismiss "God" (that blanket idea) would be foolish, especially when one does not know what is being discussed.

Of course, this is provided these intricacies are of interest to you. Just like football intricacies are of interest to the football aficionado, while they're no more than sweaty men in children's clothes running after a ball for those who're not ; similarly, if these intricacies don't hold your interest, and if precision is not important to you, then sure, simply saying you don't believe in God (and in SF) is just fine.

Which is why I raised the SF analogy. To the extent you can, with reason, dismiss SF in general, to that extent and to that level of precision it would be reasonable to dismiss the God question in general as well.

(And incidentally : I take care to usually say "the God question" rather than simply God, because some elements of the God question do not posit God at all, and yet are wholly religious and Woo-ridden.)


In the existence of gods, unicorns, fairies and other extraterrestrial beings, no. Nego. Scepticism would be too much like credulity.
Click to expand...


And here I agree fully with you. Certainly about the unicorns, faeries, and extra-terrestrials ; and also about gods, if by “gods” you mean, for instance, the Yahweh-God and/or the Allah-God and/or the Indra-God an/or the Zeus-God, et cetera.
 
Chanakya said:
Why this curious aversion of yours for long posts? Do you have some kind of a medical condition, some particular variation of dyslexia, some particular kind of attention deficit disorder, something like that? Or might it be that you use a phone, as opposed to a regular computer, so that larger posts are relatively difficult for you to handle?

I’m not being snarky in asking this! And nor do I mean to be at all rude. Just curious.
Click to expand...
Regardless that I do have a “particular variation of dyslexia” and a “kind of attention interest deficit disorder”, my aversion toward verbosity is neither uncommon nor the result of “some kind of a medical condition”. It is in fact quite a normal response to “waffle”.

Verbose - “If you describe a person or a piece of writing as verbose, you are critical of them because they use more words than are necessary, and so make you feel bored and/or annoyed”
 
Last edited:
Thor 2 said:
I agree with you ynot. I gave up trying to read Chanakya's posts some time ago. I can spend those hours more productively on less time consuming activities like building giant edifices.:)
Click to expand...
Some seem to think quantity is a good replacement for quality.
 
Last edited:
What could be more productive than clocking up a 3,639 post count here, at least some of them with content-free stick-up-for-my-mate-no-matter-what posts, eh?
 
7,639 posts of closed-minded clamoring is far more of "waffling" (and certainly of "quantity") to my mind, than raising questions that said clamorers are unable to respond to except with snark and lame put-downs that can't even put down properly.

But ynot, I was actually not being snarky when I asked you about your aversion for long posts. Seriously.

I see now the aversion is for posts that question your unexamined biases, regardless of length. QED.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
And yet there are plenty of individual components in SF, individual descriptions of things and conditions in SF, that are closely modeled on reality, that is, they actually reflect reality (or what reality might, realistically, turn out to be going forward). That is especially true of the so-called “hard” science fiction. Arthur Clarke, for instance.

This came up -- my post that you responded to -- when David Mo equated belief in Gods with belief in centaurs, so that I pointed out to him that this wasn’t comparing apples to apples. A more symmetrical comparison would be if one compared belief in centaurs to belief in the Yahweh-God, for instance, or if one compared belief in God (in general) to belief in science fiction (in general). That is, compare specifics with specifics, and broad generalizations with broad generalizations, like with like.

To the extent that he (or you, or anyone) can rightly say you/they do not, with good reason, believe in science fiction (in general), I guess I (or anyone else) can rightly say, with justification, that I/we do not, with good reason, believe in God (in general).

This was a discussion not so much about soft and hard atheism, as about atheism and igtheism. Igtheists are atheists too, but using the term “igtheist” clarifies one’s sense, one’s meaning. (Much like the word term “hard SF” that I’d used within this post. Much like any nuance does.) It’s a distinction that aficionados, those with an interest in the subject (in any subject), would find meaningful ; and those without are free to ignore.
Click to expand...
Most (if not all) fiction contains elements of fact, this doesn’t make the story-line any less fiction. Arthur C Clarke didn’t include using space satellites for global communications in any fiction writing that I’m aware of. But even if he did, so what? It was a prediction of a person with some scientific knowledge and logical imagination, nothing to do with fiction.
 
Chanakya said:
What could be more productive than clocking up a 3,639 post count here, at least some of them with content-free stick-up-for-my-mate-no-matter-what posts, eh?
Click to expand...
Obviously addressed to Thor 2 with a disingenuous "Not snarky" disclaimer I suspect.
 
The not-snarky disclaimer applied only to the one post it referred to, the first one on this page. Not disingenuous at all. You will notice that I had actually broken off my response to that post of yours into two byte-sized posts, in deference to your curious aversion.

But no, I see now that this aversion was just closed-mindedness.

As for your own attempts at snark, next time try putting some wit into them. Works better that way.
 
Last edited:
ynot, you've entirely missed the point of what I said about SF. That post was short enough, and yet even here the comprehension process seems to have broken down, eh?

If you're really interested to know what it was you missed, read my post #403 addressed to David Mo. I really can't be bothered to repeat my point again in single-syllable-words and byte-sized posts for your benefit.

You're right about one thing, though : I've probably wasted far more time on this thread than I should have, than any sensible person should have. Like you have blind spots all over you, it seems this was mine. Thanks for alerting me to this.

Cheers!
 
Chanakya said:
ynot, you've entirely missed the point of what I said about SF. That post was short enough, and yet even here the comprehension process seems to have broken down, eh?

If you're really interested to know what it was you missed, read my post #403 addressed to David Mo. I really can't be bothered to repeat my point again in single-syllable-words and byte-sized posts for your benefit.

You're right about one thing, though : I've probably wasted far more time on this thread than I should have, than any sensible person should have. Like you have blind spots all over you, it seems this was mine. Thanks for alerting me to this.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
That science (or any) fiction may contain elements of fact doesn’t make the fictional elements any less fictional, or the factual any less factual. You seem to be arguing for some sort of credibility by association.

ETA - Not agreeing with the point isn't the same as "missing the point".
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
My point is, the God question is so vast, and includes so many different variations (some of which are plain wrong, without a shadow of a doubt ; some that are wholly unfalsifiable, so that rather than go into right or wrong one dismisses them in the absence of compelling evidence ; and some that well might contain elements of truth. Like SF, to dismiss "God" (that blanket idea) would be foolish, especially when one does not know what is being discussed.
Click to expand...
Exactly what about “the God question” is not “plain wrong”, and not “wholly unfalsifiable”, and “that well might contain elements of truth”?
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
I've explained that already in this thread.
Click to expand...
I've already explained why I don't accept your explanation. Care to address that rather than merely claim "It's true".

I contend - All gods are purely fictional characters of belief that aren’t supported by a single piece of credible, empirical evidence. As such they're all plain(ly) wrong, wholly unfalsifiable and contain no elements of truth. That some fictional stories about gods may contain elements of fact/truth is irrelevant to gods being purely fictional.
 
Last edited:
You're right, my explanation does not succeed as an exlanation. That is because you haven't understood it.

As for your contention, I agree fully. We have no disagreement on that score.

That you make that contention at all shows you haven't grasped what I was saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom