True Skeptics Cannot be Religious
- Thread starter BS Investigator
- Start date
Pedro Gomes said:
Very nice diagram. The problem is that there are different definitions of "atheism." One is called a "weak atheist" where the person simply holds no belief one way or the other as to whether a god exists. This view is also sometimes called "agnostic." Other atheists ("strong atheists") hold the belief that you stated (that there are no gods). The word "atheism" literally just means "not theism" so both strong and weak atheists are technically correct calling themselves "atheists."
In reality, agnosticism, atheism, and theism are not three different and distinct views. Agnosticism is instead combined with either atheism or theism. Agnosticism is a statement of whether it is possible to know for certain if a god exists. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know. A "gnostic" believes that it is possible to know.
All "weak atheists" are also agnostic, which is where the confusion sets in. Because of this, many people call the "agnostic weak atheist" simply an "agnostic," and call the "strong atheist" simply an "atheist." It is also possible to be an "agnostic theist" or an "agnostic strong atheist" (both leaving room for doubt as to the existance of a god because it is impossible to know for certain).
For a full discussion of this topic, see this thread.
That said, the point of your diagram is well-taken and correct -- that agnostic theism and agnostic strong atheism are indeed two sides of a coin (one believes that there is a god or gods, the other that there are no gods), and both are belief without proof, making them opinion rather than fact.
Gnostic theism and gnostic atheism both make claims of fact, and would require evidence to back up those claims. Some have argued that there are no gnostic atheists, and although I'm not certain this is true, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion.
-Bri
Robin said:
No, I cannot, but for the purpose of the discussion I was assuming that you, like most people, believe that there is no such thing as faeries. You may replace the word "faeries" with something else for which you have a similar belief if you like. I thought that went without saying, but apparently it doesn't.
I certainly apologize if I insulted any belief you might have in faeries.
-Bri
Robin said:
Of course if there was no evidence at all, one might have to take an agnostic approach and claim no belief one way or the other. But there is some evidence both for and against the existance of gods, just not very strong evidence. Certainly not clear evidence one way or the other.
Many atheists and theists admit that there is no clear evidence one way or the other, but that doesn't prevent them from claiming a belief one way or the other. These people would be considered "agnostic strong atheists" and "agnostic theists." There are many such people.
It would seem that "agnostic" is precisely the word you're looking for. The word "agnostic" simply means "without knowledge" and is used to indicate that we cannot know something for certain because there is no clear evidence one way or the other.
So are you saying that anyone who holds a belief or opinion on any topic for which there is no clear evidence one way or the other isn't a "true skeptic?"
-Bri
BS Investigator
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 330
Bri said:
It's not "any topic", it's extraordinary claims. It would be pointless to demand "evidence" for every little thing.
But yes, if there is any "topic for which there is no clear evidence one way or the other"...ie, if no valid scientific evidence is POSSIBLE, then no, a True Skeptic would not believe it.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Re: Re: Re: "To mysterious seem, obscure you must be." - Fluffy the Good.
The Zen which can be spoken is not the True Zen.
Donn said:
The Zen which can be spoken is not the True Zen.
Robin said:
Please define "extraordinary claim."
BS Investigator defined it as "no valid scientific evidence is POSSIBLE."
By this definition, not only would an opinion that there are no faeries be an extraordinary claim, but the opinion that there ARE faeries might not be (it might be possible to prove that there are faeries by producing one).
-Bri
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Bri said:
Funny definition of 'already'. The link you give is after the
I never said that it did. In fact I don't think I even gave a definition of "strong atheist". We are discussing your definition of strong atheist.
Remember you said being a strong atheist means:
"...knowing for a fact that it is impossible for a god to exist when nobody can possibly know that?"
As I said, I have never heard of strong atheists under this definition.
Is it asking too much to ask you to address what I actually said rather than what you think I ought to have said?
BS Investigator
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 330
Bri said:
No. Because there is no valid scientific evidence either way. How could you possibly be 100% sure there are no "faeries"?
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
I see, so when you said "You claimed that you believe that there are no faeries" you were not referring to any claim that I had made. What you really meant was "I assume that you believe that there are no faeries" and I am supposed to work out what you really meant. So when exactly did the phrase "you claimed" get changed into "I assume"?Bri said:
Rule 1 of skepticism "don't assume".
You thought it went without saying that the only alternatives that you had considered were the only alternatives possible, as demonstrated by your next statement:
And now you are trying to turn your blunder into an insult. Nice. In fact you have demonstrated you have failed to grasp what I am saying. You think that the only alternatives to "I believe that there are no faeries" is "I believe that there are faeries" or "I don't know".
In fact the more reasonable statement is "I don't believe that there are faeries".
The difference is significant. It is not suspending judgement, it is not agnostic and it is not a belief position at all. But every time I say this you want to slot it into one cells in your label table.
I have never come across any serious claim that there are real faeries, like most people I think of faeries as the imaginary characters of fold legend. As a result I have no basis for saying "I believe" anything, so my position is simply "I don't believe".
The same with God. My position is not "I believe there is no God", but "I don't believe there is a God". It is not an agnostic position nor does it mean I am on the fence. It means I am not even on the belief/doubt scale for this one. But for some specific definitions of God I can truly say "I believe there is no such God" because I have evidence.
Robin said:
I know, you have made your opinions (or lack thereof) concerning faeries abundantly clear. I, for one, have an opinion about faeries, and I don't believe they exist. You apparently hold no opinion whatsoever on the existance of faeries, and I respect that. Really, I do. Again, please forgive me for assuming that you actually thought that there are no faeries.
Oh, but this sounds awfully close to an opinion concerning the existance of faeries to me. If you think of faeries as imaginary, that comes awfully close to an opinion that they don't exist. Be careful, if you have an opinion about faeries, you may not be a "true skeptic!"
If your lack of a belief in God stems from a belief that one cannot currently know for certain if God exists (from lack of evidence or otherwise), then you are also agnostic. In fact, nearly all weak atheists are also agnostic.
-Bri
Robin said:
Huh? The links I gave were from many posts before your post which is here.
Whichever definition you choose (there are two in question, neither of which are "my" definitions -- both are taken from common sources) doesn't affect the argument.
Whether or not anyone actually holds one or the other belief doesn't affect the argument either, and is completely off-topic. There are other threads to discuss the meanings of the various belief systems as well as how many people actually hold those beliefs.
-Bri
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Still trying to turn your blunder into an insult eh? Still with the straw man? Still putting words into my mouth? Have you any idea what trouble your argument must be in for you to resort to such tactics?Bri said:
If you are just going to continually do this, even after you have been asked by a number of people not to, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
Robin said:
What insult? Didn't you say that you don't hold an opinion on the existance of faeries? If that's not what you said, then please explain.
It sounds as though you either hold the opinion that there are no faeries, or you have no opinion at all concerning the existance of faeries, but I cannot figure out which. Again, I apologize if you took my comments as an insult. I am simply attempting to understand your position.
-Bri
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
I can't find where I have even used the word 'opinion' at all, so I am not really sure what you are talking about.Bri said:
You could settle the matter beyond doubt if you would just quote back the place where I said I did not hold an opinion on the existence of faeries. So why don't you?
Again, it would be helpful if you could quote back the part where I said this and I can probably see where you went wrong, I can't see where I have said either of these things. Are you sure you are looking at something I wrote? Are you mixing me up with someone else perhaps? I am genuinely mystified about where you are getting this.
You could start by going back and reading what I actually said.
I said "I don't believe that faeries exist" because I like to be precise about belief statements. That is the most correct statement regarding my belief in the existence of such creatures. I can honestly say I have never given the matter any thought and I don't really intend to do so now. I can't prove that they don't exist or derive any evidence for their non-existence so to say "I believe that faeries do not exist" would not be completely accurate. I don't really intend to lose any sleep over the possibility of small, translucent-winged bipeds anywhere in the universe.
Then clearly I am not an agnostic. My lack of a belief does not stem from the belief that one cannot know for certain if God exists. That is more than I can say without knowing the specific definition of God. So depending on the definition I am not a weak atheist either. I don't believe in God. It is that simple.Bri said:
My lack of belief stems from the lack of evidence for the existence of any given definition of God. It also stems from a lack of any fixed definition for God. As I have said before a God with all power in the universe could be considered capable of providing evidence of his existence. That he might have reasons not to is neither here not there. We would not consider a claimed psychic as beyond the purview of science because he refused to demonstrate his powers.
I can say "God does not exist" for specific definitions of God. I believe that the 'salvation through Christ' God does not exist. Similarly the 'rot in Hell' God does not exist. I can even be fairly confident that the 'God made Hell to honour man's choices' God does not exist. I have not decided definitely about the 'omniscient God with free will' yet, but it is looking doubtful.
Is the universe the result of purposeful intelligent design? I don't know. I don't even know if it is, or will be, possible to know.
On the other hand do I think there is some commonality in the spiritual beliefs observed in humanity? Yes I do. Do I think this is due to a common psychological trait or some external principle? Again I don't know and again, I don't know if it is, or will be possible to know. I am of the opinion that it is simply a psychological trait, but recognise this as simply an opinion.
But it is fair to say that to have blanket beliefs about broad generic concepts such as 'God' or 'god' either way could not be considered a skeptical approach. Even before evidence you have to have some sort of definition.
And of course deriving detailed classifications for belief positions on a vague, undefined concept is doubly foolish.
BS Investigator said:
No opinion (by definition) is 100% sure. So, can you have an opinion about anything that is not verifiable (there is no clear scientific evidence either way) and still be a "true skeptic?"
Even Robin in his latest post seems to have finally admitted to having an opinion about something that cannot be verified, and admitted that he cannot be 100% sure that his opinion is correct. So is Robin not a "true skeptic?"
-Bri