We are all agnostic

[Skeptic Ginger]

IMHO, I think having a fluffy "It might be" weakens the position of agnostics and ignostics (very interesting BTW) and also science, to the point where any and all woo has safe ground and effective scientific plausibility for any nonsense.

This gray area of "It might be" has been well and truly exploited by both ID and Homeopathy ... to name but two. It also has had negative impact on daily life, such as Health and Safety, where extremes of chance are interpreted as "Well, that 1:10¹²⁸ might me ME!"

The agnostic/ignostic "It might be" may be correct for some distant chance in a universe differently contructed to the one we understand at an un-specified future point. This, to me is the agnostic/ignostic position and I fail to see how that is either useful or helpful.

It is a definite liability when dealing with social/political manefestations of those promoting delusion, ignorance, disinformation, religion and psuedoscience.

One should state definitely "No, that [insert woo] is nonsense and incorrect." If challenged, "If I'm wrong - show me evidence where I'm wrong."

I see little point in giving the woo a fluffy "It might be" on the limits of chance to hide in.

What are agnostics/ignostics afraid of? They might be wrong and magic pixies are going to stick hot pokers up their bum for ever? If so you are neither agnostic nor ignostic but a believer, all be it a non-specific believer.

.

Well put.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having read all this, I too must now reluctantly commit to something, and accordingly change my 'ag' to 'ig'.

You could change it to atheist who understands the scientific principle of uncertainty and not proving the negative but doesn't see how that applies to god beliefs anymore than it applies to homeopathy cures as H3ll suggests.

 

[wollery]

Often the entire line of evidence is ignored by skeptics making the agnostic argument, (they mostly haven't thought about it) and most certainly ignored by the majority of theists, (a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest).

The evidence is overwhelming if you look at the anthropological record and consider the psychology of magical beliefs. We have overwhelming evidence from both fields.

In anthropology there is evidence that god beliefs arose from human endeavors to explain and control the world around them. We have evidence in psychology today that shows at least some of the mechanisms for why people believe weird things.

Add to that the myriad of god beliefs theists have no doubt in dismissing as myth. These 'dismissed as mythical' beliefs have all the same themes as the god beliefs people maintain are real. You cannot explain away the phenomena by saying maybe they believe in the same god because these beliefs are incompatible with each other despite the same themes.

And top that off with the fact there isn't a single credible bit of evidence any of these myths arose because people had real interactions with actual gods.


For those of us who recognize one god myth is the same as the next, the evidence is overwhelming. For those who do not recognize their god myth is indeed a myth, they cannot see the reasoning.

All of which misses an incredibly obvious point.

Just because humans crave meaning, and invent gods to fill the gaps of their knowledge, and also to give themselves power, does not in any way prove that some form of god does not actually exist. All it proves is that humans are capable of dreaming up the idea of such a being, and indeed, most seem to feel a need to do so.

I recognize that all god myths are human constructs, and have said as much on several occasions in this thread alone.

That does not in any way negate the possibility of there being a god of some sort. That it is nothing like any description that anyone has ever come up with is something of which I am pretty darn certain.

 

[Dragoonster]

IMHO, I think having a fluffy "It might be" weakens the position of agnostics and ignostics (very interesting BTW) and also science, to the point where any and all woo has safe ground and effective scientific plausibility for any nonsense.

This gray area of "It might be" has been well and truly exploited by both ID and Homeopathy ... to name but two. It also has had negative impact on daily life, such as Health and Safety, where extremes of chance are interpreted as "Well, that 1:10¹²⁸ might me ME!"

The agnostic/ignostic "It might be" may be correct for some distant chance in a universe differently contructed to the one we understand at an un-specified future point. This, to me is the agnostic/ignostic position and I fail to see how that is either useful or helpful.

You don't see how holding a position that's logically correct is helpful?

It is a definite liability when dealing with social/political manefestations of those promoting delusion, ignorance, disinformation, religion and psuedoscience.

One should state definitely "No, that [insert woo] is nonsense and incorrect." If challenged, "If I'm wrong - show me evidence where I'm wrong."

So we should lie and claim we know something is 100% impossible merely so we can argue better? Why on earth should we expect the opponents to take any rational argument from us seriously if we do this? It's very likely that later on in such an argument you'll have to return to your claim in order to admit that yes, it's metaphysically possible that [insert woo] is actually correct. Then you're exposed for a hyperbole and viewed as biased or emotional. And certainly not rational or an honest debater.

I see little point in giving the woo a fluffy "It might be" on the limits of chance to hide in.

What are agnostics/ignostics afraid of? They might be wrong and magic pixies are going to stick hot pokers up their bum for ever? If so you are neither agnostic nor ignostic but a believer, all be it a non-specific believer.

.

I'm not agnostic because I'm afraid or want to hedge bets or anything. I'm agnostic because I see it as the logical, rational position to take. Some of you seem to be arguing that we should abandon reason for the sake of rhetorical position. That's anti-skeptical in my book, not to mention irrational.

And as theists may convince themselves that they know god(s) exists in order to find spiritual comfort, some atheists here seem to want to convince themselves that they know (or pretend they do for argument) so that they find intellectual comfort. When they reach a position through reason that doesn't provide enough "juice" they seek one that does, even if it isn't a natural rational progression. If they admit a very slim chance that their opponent is right, even if that chance exists, they see it as "weak" and that they should not admit it? Even though it's correct? Huh?

I'm struggling to find the difference between woo-artists and some of the strong atheist arguments here. It's like each extreme is content to ignore reason because it doesn't neatly fit what they want their argument to be.

Sorry if I got the idea of the thread completely wrong and it's only about rhetorical technique, not philosophical truth values or rational positions.

 

[wollery]

IMHO, I think having a fluffy "It might be" weakens the position of agnostics and ignostics (very interesting BTW) and also science, to the point where any and all woo has safe ground and effective scientific plausibility for any nonsense.

No, for the simple reason that it's a strawman. "It might be" is a gross oversimplification. Particularly when applied to the scientific sphere. I think a more accurate stance would be, "Well, it can't be entirely ruled out, but you're gonna have to produce some amazing evidence to even make me consider the possibility."

This gray area of "It might be" has been well and truly exploited by both ID and Homeopathy ... to name but two. It also has had negative impact on daily life, such as Health and Safety, where extremes of chance are interpreted as "Well, that 1:10¹²⁸ might me ME!"

Well, since ID and Homoeopathy both claim to be within the scientific framework, and both can be conclusively shown to be complete piles of bovine faeces, I fail to see the analogy. ID and Homoeopathy utterly contradict all of the available evidence. The existence or nonexistence of god has no evidence, either way. Apples and oranges.

As for the health and safety example, that has far more to do with the litigation societies that we now live in than anything else.

The agnostic/ignostic "It might be" may be correct for some distant chance in a universe differently contructed to the one we understand at an un-specified future point. This, to me is the agnostic/ignostic position and I fail to see how that is either useful or helpful.

Is it a different Universe, or a future time. Try to make up your mind. And your view of your interpretation of the ag/ignostic position is meaningless, because it's a strawman.

It is a definite liability when dealing with social/political manefestations of those promoting delusion, ignorance, disinformation, religion and psuedoscience.

No more than the atheist position, which the theists can point to as being an intolerant, absolutist position with no evidence to back it up.

One should state definitely "No, that [insert woo] is nonsense and incorrect." If challenged, "If I'm wrong - show me evidence where I'm wrong."

And I do, when I have evidence that it's nonsense, such as is the case with Homoeopathy and ID. I'm even willing to stipulate that Jesus is a made up figure, derived from aspects of older religious figures, including Ra, and that christianity is based on the ramblings of a few deluded sheep herders and a few power hungry scam artists.

I see little point in giving the woo a fluffy "It might be" on the limits of chance to hide in.

What's "fluffy" about admitting a lack of knowledge? What's "fluffy" about admitting that there is a chance, albeit incredibly small? "Fluffy"? Not in the least. I find not knowing things to be extremely annoying and uncomfortable, but I'm honest, and brave enough, to admit to it.

What are agnostics/ignostics afraid of? They might be wrong and magic pixies are going to stick hot pokers up their bum for ever? If so you are neither agnostic nor ignostic but a believer, all be it a non-specific believer

Wow, what a way to completely misrepresent the ag/ignostic position, and come across as a self righteous prig in the process!

What are you afraid of? That admitting that you could be wrong will weaken your belief? Are you unwilling to admit the limits of your knowledge? Or is it that you're angry? And if you're angry, just who, or what, are you angry at?

 

[fls]

All of which misses an incredibly obvious point.

Just because humans crave meaning, and invent gods to fill the gaps of their knowledge, and also to give themselves power, does not in any way prove that some form of god does not actually exist. All it proves is that humans are capable of dreaming up the idea of such a being, and indeed, most seem to feel a need to do so.

I recognize that all god myths are human constructs, and have said as much on several occasions in this thread alone.

That does not in any way negate the possibility of there being a god of some sort. That it is nothing like any description that anyone has ever come up with is something of which I am pretty darn certain.

So in what way is that relevant when someone say, "I don't believe in God"? Would you say that we don't know whether or not homeopathy works because there could exist some as of yet undiscovered effective system of medicine that has little or nothing to do with homeopathy as described, but someone may decide to throw that label upon it once it is discovered? Is it wrong to say that homeopathy has no specific effect because that excludes the possibility that manipulation of information stored within DNA may have a therapeutic effect?

Linda

 

[fls]

No, for the simple reason that it's a strawman. "It might be" is a gross oversimplification. Particularly when applied to the scientific sphere. I think a more accurate stance would be, "Well, it can't be entirely ruled out, but you're gonna have to produce some amazing evidence to even make me consider the possibility."

Well, since ID and Homoeopathy both claim to be within the scientific framework, and both can be conclusively shown to be complete piles of bovine faeces, I fail to see the analogy. ID and Homoeopathy utterly contradict all of the available evidence. The existence or nonexistence of god has no evidence, either way. Apples and oranges.

As for the health and safety example, that has far more to do with the litigation societies that we now live in than anything else.

Is it a different Universe, or a future time. Try to make up your mind. And your view of your interpretation of the ag/ignostic position is meaningless, because it's a strawman.

No more than the atheist position, which the theists can point to as being an intolerant, absolutist position with no evidence to back it up.

And I do, when I have evidence that it's nonsense, such as is the case with Homoeopathy and ID. I'm even willing to stipulate that Jesus is a made up figure, derived from aspects of older religious figures, including Ra, and that christianity is based on the ramblings of a few deluded sheep herders and a few power hungry scam artists.

What's "fluffy" about admitting a lack of knowledge? What's "fluffy" about admitting that there is a chance, albeit incredibly small? "Fluffy"? Not in the least. I find not knowing things to be extremely annoying and uncomfortable, but I'm honest, and brave enough, to admit to it.

Wow, what a way to completely misrepresent the ag/ignostic position, and come across as a self righteous prig in the process!

What are you afraid of? That admitting that you could be wrong will weaken your belief? Are you unwilling to admit the limits of your knowledge? Or is it that you're angry? And if you're angry, just who, or what, are you angry at?

I think this goes back to the point that Yoink made. In order to distinguish atheism and agnosticism, you have assigned a fairly ridiculous position to atheism and a redundant position to agnosticism. How is that helpful (not a rhetorical question)?

Linda

 

[wollery]

So in what way is that relevant when someone say, "I don't believe in God"? Would you say that we don't know whether or not homeopathy works because there could exist some as of yet undiscovered effective system of medicine that has little or nothing to do with homeopathy as described, but someone may decide to throw that label upon it once it is discovered? Is it wrong to say that homeopathy has no specific effect because that excludes the possibility that manipulation of information stored within DNA may have a therapeutic effect?

Linda

Moving the goalposts.

We know that homoeopathy doesn't work, because it has been tested, rigorously and repeatedly, and failed every single test. Because it relies on explanations that contradict every single tenet of medicine, physiology and physics.

If, in the future, someone discovers a new, effective treatment and decides to call it homoeopathy then it will be the case that the new treatment called homoeopathy works, because it does. But it will not be the case that the arguments against what we now call homoeopathy are wrong, or that what we now call homoeopathy will suddenly become effective. That's just absurd.

I can play that game too. I've decided to call my cat "God". I can prove that my cat exists, and thus, I can prove that "God" exists.

See what I did there? I didn't even have to redefine god, I just labelled something I can prove "God" and hey presto.

It makes not a whit of difference to any of the arguments.

 

[rjwould]

Indeed, hence my statement, "We are all agnostic".

In your eyes...

To a Christian, I may be atheist...or not
To an atheist, I may be agnostic....or not
To an agnostic, I may be agnostic....or not
To me, I'm ......

I was Christian at one time, and I've been agnostic, but now I'm an atheist....because the question of god or not is meaningless to me.....I couldn't care less....

I'm indifferent on whether or not you believe in any god....how do you describe me?...Not that I care...

 

[wollery]

I think this goes back to the point that Yoink made. In order to distinguish atheism and agnosticism, you have assigned a fairly ridiculous position to atheism and a redundant position to agnosticism. How is that helpful (not a rhetorical question)?

Linda

What position have I assigned to atheism that is ridiculous? I should, perhaps, point out that I am actually referring to strong atheism, i.e., the certainty that god does not exist, which I believe to be a ridiculous position.

As for agnosticism being redundant, I refute that, on the basis of it being a simple statement of fact. I don't for a second argue that it's helpful. What's redundant is the entire argument, which is the ignostic position.

 

[wollery]

In your eyes...

To a Christian, I may be atheist...or not
To an atheist, I may be agnostic....or not
To an agnostic, I may be agnostic....or not
To me, I'm ......

I was Christian at one time, and I've been agnostic, but now I'm an atheist....because the question of god or not is meaningless to me.....I couldn't care less....

I'm indifferent on whether or not you believe in any god....how do you describe me?...Not that I care...

From your described position I would say that you sound like you are an ignostic, although some might say you are an apathetic agnostic.

 

[Mobyseven]

I think this goes back to the point that Yoink made. In order to distinguish atheism and agnosticism, you have assigned a fairly ridiculous position to atheism and a redundant position to agnosticism. How is that helpful (not a rhetorical question)?

Linda

I'm confused, because I thought the definitions he was using were the same as or close to my own - a/theism relating to belief in the existence of god, and a/gnosticism relating to belief about knowledge, in this particular case of god. If so, the atheism position isn't riduculous and the agnosticism position isn't redundant - and to top it off, the two aren't even mutually exclusive.

Also, I agree with the ignostics in regards to the whole, "What's the point of the discussion if you can't define what you mean."

I feel like I've missed something here, and I'm tired so I might have. What definitions are people using here...?

 

[fls]

Moving the goalposts.

I'm not trying to. I don't understand the distinction you are making and so I'm hoping that it will become clearer through the use of examples.

We know that homoeopathy doesn't work, because it has been tested, rigorously and repeatedly, and failed every single test. Because it relies on explanations that contradict every single tenet of medicine, physiology and physics.

If, in the future, someone discovers a new, effective treatment and decides to call it homoeopathy then it will be the case that the new treatment called homoeopathy works, because it does. But it will not be the case that the arguments against what we now call homoeopathy are wrong, or that what we now call homoeopathy will suddenly become effective. That's just absurd.

Exactly. I thought that would be a useful example because it seemed to be the light in which you viewed homeopathy. So now my question is, you seem to have a similar opinion about God when you say this:

"I recognize that all god myths are human constructs, and have said as much on several occasions in this thread alone.

That does not in any way negate the possibility of there being a god of some sort. That it is nothing like any description that anyone has ever come up with is something of which I am pretty darn certain."

"I'm even willing to stipulate that Jesus is a made up figure, derived from aspects of older religious figures, including Ra, and that christianity is based on the ramblings of a few deluded sheep herders and a few power hungry scam artists."

Can that not equally apply to any future knowledge of how the universe was created and how it operates? That is, doesn't this statement apply to atheism - "but it will not be the case that the arguments against what we now call God are wrong, or that what we now call God will suddenly become effective"?

I can play that game too. I've decided to call my cat "God". I can prove that my cat exists, and thus, I can prove that "God" exists.

See what I did there? I didn't even have to redefine god, I just labelled something I can prove "God" and hey presto.

It makes not a whit of difference to any of the arguments.

Exactly.

Linda

 

[H3LL]

I fail to see the difference between "It might be" and "It can't be entirely ruled out...".


As to the "logical" position being helpful. I'm no expert on "logic" (obviously) but, as I have mentioned before, it is "logical" that I can "fly to Jupiter on a pencil"?

Putting no limit of what you you will consider plausible is, IMHO, foolish and not even slightly helpful and as close to woo as makes no difference.

There is nothing wrong with changing your position, just have the guts to say "No!" and await the evidence that changes that statement. Nothing is forcing you to stick dogmatically to the original "No!", if and when the evidence is presented.

Anticipating the extreme chance that extraordinary evidence might turn up and therefore giving credence to rubbish waaaay outside anything known to be so, makes no sense to me and is not any "logic" I want a part of.

I'll wait until it does turn up.

Thankyouverymuch.

.

 

[fls]

What position have I assigned to atheism that is ridiculous?

For example:
"What's "fluffy" about admitting a lack of knowledge? What's "fluffy" about admitting that there is a chance, albeit incredibly small? "Fluffy"?"

I agree that it would be ridiculous to hold that position. I haven't seen anything from the people participating in this discussion that excludes admitting to a lack of knowledge or admitting to an incredibly small chance, though.

I should, perhaps, point out that I am actually referring to strong atheism, i.e., the certainty that god does not exist, which I believe to be a ridiculous position.

So atheism or theism qualified by ontology(?) is okay?

As for agnosticism being redundant, I refute that, on the basis of it being a simple statement of fact. I don't for a second argue that it's helpful. What's redundant is the entire argument, which is the ignostic position.

It's redundant in the sense that it doesn't describe a particular category as you are using it, but rather applies to all - I agree with you on this point. Which is why the use of "theism" and "atheism", with knowledge and certainty as orthogonal, seems sufficient to generally describe the range of positions.

Linda

 

[Beth]

What is the problem with accepting agnosticism as a middle ground between atheism and belief in some sort of god? Many people change their positions regarding theistic beliefs over the course of their lives, some more than once, some of them are going to move through the position of uncertainty during that process. Others are permanently stuck on the fence, unable to come to any conclusion they feel strongly about. This is a fairly common usage of the word agnostic in our culture. What's the problem with using it to mean that?

 

[wollery]

I'm not trying to. I don't understand the distinction you are making and so I'm hoping that it will become clearer through the use of examples.



Exactly. I thought that would be a useful example because it seemed to be the light in which you viewed homeopathy. So now my question is, you seem to have a similar opinion about God when you say this:

"I recognize that all god myths are human constructs, and have said as much on several occasions in this thread alone.

That does not in any way negate the possibility of there being a god of some sort. That it is nothing like any description that anyone has ever come up with is something of which I am pretty darn certain."

"I'm even willing to stipulate that Jesus is a made up figure, derived from aspects of older religious figures, including Ra, and that christianity is based on the ramblings of a few deluded sheep herders and a few power hungry scam artists."

Can that not equally apply to any future knowledge of how the universe was created and how it operates? That is, doesn't this statement apply to atheism - "but it will not be the case that the arguments against what we now call God are wrong, or that what we now call God will suddenly become effective"?

No. Absolutely not. Like I said earlier, apples and oranges. There is nothing in the general description of the word god which is at odds with the current state of scientific knowledge. As I said earlier, don't get hung up on the Judeo-Christian definition of god. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and keep repeating it until someone appears to understand me, the god of the bible/torah/koran, who made the world in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, does not exist. That particular version of god contradicts almost everything about science and the natural world that we know, and is a psychotic, amoral maniac. But the word "god" does not have such a narrow definition, and in fact has so many different definitions that they'd fill an entire library of generous dimensions. And those definitions aren't even close to exhausting all of the possible definitions which could be dreamed up.

In contrast, the word "homoeopathy" has a very precise definition, and one which can be trivially shown to be in conflict with the natural world. Homoeopathy is a well understood concept, with well defined boundaries, so finding something different at a later date that actually works and calling that Homoeopathy in order to claim that Homoeopathy works is moving the goalposts.

And this is precisely my problem with the certainty of the strong atheist position - faced with the broad definition of "god", a definition so broad that it in fact renders any discussion on its existence pointless, any absolute statement or position is ridiculous. The entire debate is ridiculous.

If you want to address the biblical god, then sure, it doesn't exist. Neither does Odin, or Zeus, or Ra, or any other specific god you care to mention. None of which negates the possibility of there being a Universal creator of some sort.

 

[fls]

I'm confused, because I thought the definitions he was using were the same as or close to my own - a/theism relating to belief in the existence of god, and a/gnosticism relating to belief about knowledge, in this particular case of god. If so, the atheism position isn't riduculous and the agnosticism position isn't redundant - and to top it off, the two aren't even mutually exclusive.

Also, I agree with the ignostics in regards to the whole, "What's the point of the discussion if you can't define what you mean."

I feel like I've missed something here, and I'm tired so I might have. What definitions are people using here...?

Redundant in the sense that this whole thread has been a tautology - if you assume that we are agnostic, then we are all agnostic.

From the OP:
"So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know."

Linda

 

[fls]

No. Absolutely not. Like I said earlier, apples and oranges. There is nothing in the general description of the word god which is at odds with the current state of scientific knowledge. As I said earlier, don't get hung up on the Judeo-Christian definition of god. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and keep repeating it until someone appears to understand me, the god of the bible/torah/koran, who made the world in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, does not exist. That particular version of god contradicts almost everything about science and the natural world that we know, and is a psychotic, amoral maniac. But the word "god" does not have such a narrow definition, and in fact has so many different definitions that they'd fill an entire library of generous dimensions. And those definitions aren't even close to exhausting all of the possible definitions which could be dreamed up.

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand. When someone says that they are an atheist, why do you assume that they are excluding all possible definitions of god?

Linda

 

[wollery]

I fail to see the difference between "It might be" and "It can't be entirely ruled out...".


As to the "logical" position being helpful. I'm no expert on "logic" (obviously) but, as I have mentioned before, it is "logical" that I can "fly to Jupiter on a pencil"?

Only if the pencil is attached to a sodding huge rocket, and you hold on very tightly.

Putting no limit of what you you will consider plausible is, IMHO, foolish and not even slightly helpful and as close to woo as makes no difference.

There's a difference between "possible" and "plausible". I've never used the word plausible in this discussion, nor, to the best of my knowledge, in any discussion on the existence of god.

There is nothing wrong with changing your position, just have the guts to say "No!" and await the evidence that changes that statement. Nothing is forcing you to stick dogmatically to the original "No!", if and when the evidence is presented.

Never said there was.

Anticipating the extreme chance that extraordinary evidence might turn up and therefore giving credence to rubbish waaaay outside anything known to be so, makes no sense to me and is not any "logic" I want a part of.

Who said anything about anticipating? Not me. Nor any agnostic atheist I know. Another strawman.

I'll wait until it does turn up.

Now who's anticipating?