• 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.

What's wrong with saying "we don't know"?

Radrook said:
That's why they assume that they have absolute proof there isn't a God. That answers everything to their satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Strawman, again. Do you really believe repeating this nonsense often enough will somehow make it true, or are you being intentionally dishonest?
 
Radrook said:
Prejudiuced and dictating. You just managed to describe yourself and your cronies. As for definitions, your definitions don't make sense to me because they are self contradictory. If they make perfect sense to you then that's OK by me. But don't try to foist them on me. In whatever case, the TYPE of atheist I have chosen to refer to is a total atheist in the way I have chosen to
describe. Is that OK by you? If not then either use the ignore option or don't waste my time with irrelevant remarks.
Click to expand...
You set up a position that nobody here holds, that atheism claims absolute certainty, and then proceeded to attack that position as if that somehow had any relevance to the discussion. You were repeatedly warned that this strawman of yours was a blatant misrepresentation of the atheist stance, yet you've continued to project your own solipsistic assumptions onto the atheists here. You failed to demonstrate how my definitions are self contradictory, or even to address my actual arguments, which is the same treatment you've given to other members here who have had the patience to try to explain things to you. If you're so offended by the fact that your narrow beliefs and prejudices have been challenged, then perhaps you have the wrong beliefs.
Radrook said:
Snip Snip Snip Snip Snip Sigh! Bye!

BTW
Please try to stay within the intitial subject parameters as I am carefully doing instead of creating a target and attributing that target to me. Otherwise I will be forced to discuss things only with those who remain within the thread's parameters since I have a low level of tolerance for deviations-especially deviations full of snide remarks, and delivered in a sarcastic angered tone.
Click to expand...
I directed my attacks against your definitions and arguments, you directed your attacks against me. You might want to take a good look at your first statement there, because that is exactly what your argument about atheists, that they claim to KNOW that there are no gods, consisted of. Nobody ever claimed this. You made it up and attributed that target to us.

Also, way to ignore the actual arguments I was making, once again. If you want to call this thread to the attention of the moderators, by all means go ahead.
 
Gate2501 said:
What definitions are you using?
Click to expand...

The definition in bold below:

Merriam-Webster's Defines atheist as follows:

Main Entry:
athe·ist
Pronunciation:
\'a-the-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity

If I throw a rock up into the air, I believe that it will fall back down to earth. I may not think that it is completely impossible for that rock to just keep flying straight up, but it is so improbable that I would be a blithering idiot for expecting this to occur... EVER

I believe that there are no deities, because none of them make a lick of sense, and there is zero evidence to support the existence of any god or gods. I am an atheist.

That does not mean that I have to say that there isn't a one in near infinite chances that I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Then in accordance with that last statement I would choose to conclude that you don't fit the definition you yourself provided via Websters.

You sir, would like to paint all people that would classify themselves as atheists as ignorant egomaniacs who will not admit that there is this remote, and I mean REMOTE possibility, that they could be wrong.
Click to expand...

You are confusing my preference for a definition with a host of value judgments that you make and then attribute to me. Maybe you might calm down if you would be informed that the position I am taking in this discussion is that of an agnostic. You know-the I don't know viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Furi said:
I believe your statement to be correct (and Moby's).

Do theist have this problem where the definition is allowed to be fuzzy and mutable, because theism requires absolutes?
Click to expand...

I don't think that theism requires absolutes, per se, but fundamentalism does. There are plenty of people who "believe in god" but have doubts and reservations concerning their own religious beliefs or religion in general.
 
ttch said:
You don't know, and your friend doesn't know either. Adding God to the equation just adds a mystery to a mystery and leaves one as ignorant as before.
Click to expand...

Conversely, saying that one knows for sure that there isn't a God doesn't answer anything but adds mystery to mystery since one cannot prove such an assertion.
Click to expand...
 
Everyone has a different definition for "atheist" it seems. For some reason, the theist pushes the "denial of god" aspect, while the atheists I know, or know of, just "don't believe in god", period. Sort of embarrassing to have to repeat this so often.

Then, a subset of atheists, actively tries to debunk the notion of the supernatural. I think this is where there is a missing concept for which we need a word. Usually, it is "strong atheist", or some such...not good enough.

Agnostic, is an epistemologically relevant position only. It's about what can be known. There are agnostic atheists, and some who are not...they just know there is no chance of gods.

Not believing and ruling out existence are subtle points on a continuum, I suspect. It really is not a point worth arguing, in my opinion. Every atheist is an individual, and has subtly different points of view. I think it would be cool, or interesting at least, to actually have proof of some sort of mastermind controlling the universe, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
Conversely, saying that one knows for sure that there isn't a God doesn't answer anything but adds mystery to mystery since one cannot prove such an assertion.
Click to expand...

Rad,

It's an assertion that nobody here has made. Show me one time in the entirety of this thread, quote it, when a member who identifies as an atheist has said that there is absolutely no possibility of a God existing.

You should know by now that the inability to disprove the existence of something doesn't give it 50/50 odds of existing. By your logic, we should be giving credence to any flown-out-the-ass idea that anyone wants to throw out and it just makes no logical sense to do so. Clearly you must be able to understand THAT much.
 
Mobyseven said:
See, now that just confuses me. I've explained this all I don't know how many times, and yet there are still many people who insist upon there being some sort of bizarre continuum. Never any reasoning or evidence behind the statement, merely that it is their opinion or whatever.
Click to expand...
I thought I had SOME reasoning in the bit you clipped out, but whatever.

The fact that you can have strong atheists, agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and true believers, says to me that there is a continuum. I suspect most people are agnostic by my lights. I think (here's the "mere opinion" part) that "agnostic" is a useful category by itself, without qualifying either atheist or theist.

Mobyseven said:
It's getting really tiring, honestly. You can't have a meaningful discussion about a topic if people are allowed to use nonsense words and definitions.
Click to expand...
I suspect more people are in the "continuum" camp than in your "allowable" camp, but I'm not going to get into any pedantic debate about it. I think meaningful discussion is still possible, if we focus on the specifics of what people believe rather than fretting about what label to assign, but meaning is in the mind of the beholder.
 
I used to ascribe to the "continuum" definition, until I heard it explained on JREF that one must also qualify the term "agnostic" according to its etymology, in the same way that I have repeatedly argued that the term "atheism" be defined. If you take the word agnostic for what it literally translates into, it means a stance on gnosis, or knowledge; in other words, what can and cannot be known. What this means is that you can be:

Gnostic Theist - You believe in a god or gods, and claim certainty.
Agnostic Theist - You believe in a god or gods, yet do not claim certainty.
Gnostic Atheist - You do not believe in gods, and claim certainty.
Agnostic Atheist - You do not believe in gods, nor do you claim certainty.
(Someone posted a diagram of this a couple of months ago, but damned if I can find it.)

Given that JREF is a skeptics forum, most of the atheists here, myself included, would fall into the agnostic atheist category. I have sometimes referred to myself as an "agnostic fundamentalist" in that I don't believe in gods because I don't know for certain whether or not they exist, and neither do you. I have never once asserted that there is no God, and it's exceedingly rare to hear any atheist who has arrived at an atheistic conclusion via skepticism make such an assertion. I have yet to see it appear in this thread, for that matter.

Besides, an atheist is not defined as someone who asserts God does not exist. I challenge anyone to find a single reputable dictionary that defines the term that way.
 
Amen. :relieved:

(Can I borrow that?)

Ok, back to the thread: "What's wrong with saying we don't know?"

I predict that within 10 posts, someone will claim all atheists assert that god does not exist. I still think we need a word for those who do.


Actually in another thread, there is a poll of the forum. This answer got 70%:
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bokonon said:
I thought I had SOME reasoning in the bit you clipped out, but whatever.

The fact that you can have strong atheists, agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and true believers, says to me that there is a continuum. I suspect most people are agnostic by my lights. I think (here's the "mere opinion" part) that "agnostic" is a useful category by itself, without qualifying either atheist or theist.
Click to expand...

Except that the four categories - 'Strong' (gnostic) atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist and 'true believer' (gnostic theist) - do not lie on any type of continuum. They are a combination of two very different positions: An epistemological position (gnosticism/agnosticism) and an ontological position (theism/atheism). "Agnostic" is a useful category by itself so long as one is describing an epistemological position - when it is used to describe an ontological position between 'belief' and 'non-belief' for any subject it is no longer of any use, simply because it is a nonsense statement - it is the statement ~(p v ~p), which is a logical contradiction.

bokonon said:
I suspect more people are in the "continuum" camp than in your "allowable" camp, but I'm not going to get into any pedantic debate about it. I think meaningful discussion is still possible, if we focus on the specifics of what people believe rather than fretting about what label to assign, but meaning is in the mind of the beholder.
Click to expand...

I don't care who is in whose 'camp'. I don't even know what you mean by 'allowable'. If everybody in the world turned around tomorrow and said that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism I still wouldn't agree because such a statement is demonstrably wrong.

You might not think that using words that have actual meanings is important in discussion, but I do. So long as people are using 'agnosticism' as an ontological position between theism and atheism, I will be pointing out to them that it is no such thing, and that no position exists. While people are asserting that they hold a logically contradictory position, I will be pointing that out to them, and it is likely the discussion will not proceed further. This is not me being pedantic about things, this is because until people are claiming a position that is at least logically valid, it is meaningless to try and discuss the soundness of their position.

It is not the label I object to, it is the position itself. I wouldn't care if the position was described as 'fluffnostastic'. The fact that 'agnostic', a word that has a real, meaningful definition, has been hijacked with this nonsense is just another unfortunate happening - not my main issue.
 
Mobyseven said:
Except that the four categories - 'Strong' (gnostic) atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist and 'true believer' (gnostic theist) - do not lie on any type of continuum. They are a combination of two very different positions: An epistemological position (gnosticism/agnosticism) and an ontological position (theism/atheism).
Click to expand...
I see theism/atheism as another epistemological position because, as I've said, it depends on how one defines the deity or deities in question, so perhaps that's the source of the disconnect. In my mind, and I think in most people's minds, "agnostic" is to atheism/theism as "undecided" is to Obama/Clinton. Presumably, more information could swing the vote either way. If we had a time machine and could go back to find a serpent beguiling Eve, that would sway belief in one direction. If we used the same time machine to learn that none of the myths happened as described, and most didn't happen at all, it would go the other way.

Mobyseven said:
"Agnostic" is a useful category by itself so long as one is describing an epistemological position - when it is used to describe an ontological position between 'belief' and 'non-belief' for any subject it is no longer of any use, simply because it is a nonsense statement - it is the statement ~(p v ~p), which is a logical contradiction.
Click to expand...
Your saying that using "agnostic" as a synonym for "undecided" is the same as saying "I pee freely" doesn't make it so. Maybe instead of getting your knickers in a knot, you could just mentally substitute your word of choice for "agnostic" when it is used in a way you deem inappropriate.

Mobyseven said:
I don't care who is in whose 'camp'. I don't even know what you mean by 'allowable'.
Click to expand...
You implied people shouldn't be allowed to use words the way people use words.

Mobyseven said:
If everybody in the world turned around tomorrow and said that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism I still wouldn't agree because such a statement is demonstrably wrong.

You might not think that using words that have actual meanings is important in discussion, but I do. So long as people are using 'agnosticism' as an ontological position between theism and atheism, I will be pointing out to them that it is no such thing, and that no position exists. While people are asserting that they hold a logically contradictory position, I will be pointing that out to them, and it is likely the discussion will not proceed further. This is not me being pedantic about things, this is because until people are claiming a position that is at least logically valid, it is meaningless to try and discuss the soundness of their position.

It is not the label I object to, it is the position itself. I wouldn't care if the position was described as 'fluffnostastic'. The fact that 'agnostic', a word that has a real, meaningful definition, has been hijacked with this nonsense is just another unfortunate happening - not my main issue.
Click to expand...
So, I'll put you down for "no middle ground." Good luck with THAT windmill.
 
Last edited:
Good effort, Mobyseven. Seems there are always some stalwarts who can't or won't understand that if one is not a theist, one is an atheist. But keep at it. Your explanations are pretty clear, and even if you can't get through to everyone, some will certainly understand.
 
Well you could always put me down for Gnostic Atheist or Fundy Atheist or even "The Athiest Atheist", if it makes Radrook happy and the thread move on.

My rules of certainty are less absolute then others, as far as I am concerned when you get down to the P<1x10-21 level for the possible existance of a god that'll do for me, and I may start re assessing when further dramatic evidence comes to light but till then I have more interest in discussing ignorance rather than debating labels

(and if I am feeling lazy over 99% certain is good enough for eyeballing it)
 
GeeMack said:
Good effort, Mobyseven. Seems there are always some stalwarts who can't or won't understand that if one is not a theist, one is an atheist. But keep at it. Your explanations are pretty clear, and even if you can't get through to everyone, some will certainly understand.
Click to expand...

Suppose the concept of god of individual "A" is very different than the concept of another "B". Both are theists, right?

Now, suppose a third individual "C" does not even bother to think about it, its irrelevant for him. This makes him atheist? Or he won't enter your (rather naive) category system?

Let's get back to A and B. A believes that god is a person, that he has wills, emotions, desires, can communicate with people, is good, etc. B believes that "god" is such a small word for what he believes in, kind of an impersonal, aperspectival nothingness that appears as a world from determinate perspectives.

What then?
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Suppose the concept of god of individual "A" is very different than the concept of another "B". Both are theists, right?

Now, suppose a third individual "C" does not even bother to think about it, its irrelevant for him. This makes him atheist? Or he won't enter your (rather naive) category system?

Let's get back to A and B. A believes that god is a person, that he has wills, emotions, desires, can communicate with people, is good, etc. B believes that "god" is such a small word for what he believes in, kind of an impersonal, aperspectival nothingness that appears as a world from determinate perspectives.

What then?
Click to expand...


They argue. One group is labelled heretical and then we stoke the home fires for a good old auto-de-fe.

Or start the Thirty Years' War. Something like that.
 
GeeMack said:
Good effort, MobysevenSeems there are always some stalwarts who can't or won't understand that if one is not a theist, one is an atheist.
Click to expand...

What about deist? Does theist, in this case, cover every supernatural position?

An epistemological position (gnosticism/agnosticism) and an ontological position (theism/atheism).
Click to expand...

What about an ontological position that is genuinely neither. I find it hard to imagine, but somehow someone might be able to say part God/part no God (:boggled:). I'm not sure that knowledge and belief are encompassed by only two binary variables.

What about apathy? What about concerted effort to avoid coming to a conclusion?

...

Anyway, lest I be accused of participating in the definition rounds, I'm merely trying to point out that even the most thoughtful of us can get bogged down in definition arguments, regardless of whether we feel the meanings should be clear...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom