Agnostic atheism: a reasonable position on spiritual matters, or the only reasonable position...

[Htom Sirveaux]

on spiritual matters?

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Agnostic atheism is reasonable, but other positions can be reasonable, too. For example...
	4 (44%)
	Agnostic atheism is the only reasonable position.
	4 (44%)
	Agnostic atheism is not reasonable.
	0 (0%)
	Other (please explain).
	1 (11%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Htom Sirveaux]

1. I think there are lots of perspectives that can be reasonably held.

Agnostic atheism, theism, deism...multiple positions can be reasonable because we don't have enough information to discount them. So people can start from different premises and make different assumptions, and still be internally coherent.

[intaglio]

2. In my view agnosticism is a subset of atheism

Agnostics do not believe in a god; they are atheist awaiting gnosis. Similarly All atheists are, to an extent, agnostic in that they will admit they have no absolute proof that there cannot be a deity only that on current evidence that such a deity is impossible.

The real spectrum is between Agnostics and Antitheists and personally I tend to antitheist views

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. What if a hypothetical person defines "evidence"

in a way that ends the discussion before it begins? So for example:

person 1: If you give me evidence, I will believe there is a god.
person 2: ok, what kind of evidence would you accept?
person 1: scientific evidence
person 2: but methodological naturalism is one of the tenets of science, so for any phenomena I name as evidence, a supernatural explanation will be presumed invalid. You're begging the question.

How would this hypothetical person fit into your analysis of agnosticism, atheism, and antitheism?

[intaglio]

6. Your problem there is that if a deity exists it is not supernatural

It is no longer beyond understanding (at least in part) and the way in which it acts becomes part of the natural universe.

Consider gravity: before Newton proposed his theory of gravity the fact that there was an up and down was entirely mysterious and beyond the known natural laws or effects, planets were held in their orbits by the will of God. After Newton (and, later, Einstein) gravity became predictable with predictable effects.

If a deity utters a word which changes the course of an extinction event meteorite then that word will have measurable effects, energy will be shed or expended. Anything which has an effect on the universe is, or becomes, part of that universe.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. That's still based on an assumption...

that the natural laws are a distinct alternative to the will of God, when they do not have to be. One could easily argue that the sustainability of natural laws and their ability to govern a coherent universe are the results of them being God's will, because now they have a common source (and so can be coherent) whose will is continuously upheld (and so they aren't in danger of blinking out of existence).

Everything science analyzes becomes natural because that assumption is baked into the cake from the start, not necessarily because everything is inherently natural.

[intaglio]

9. Wrong, it is saying that God's Word has an effect

That effect is either observable or unobservable. If the effect is observable it is both measurable and is no longer "supernatural" i.e. beyond nature. If it is unobservable then it is exactly as if that Word does not exist in relation to the universe.

We do not observe any effect attributable to a deity so, even if a deity exists, we can act as if it is not there.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. So for you, are "natural" and "universe" synonymous with

"existence"? Because anything outside of "natural" or "universe" has no causal power?

[intaglio]

13. Let's use the word cosmos instead of universe

As we are at odds over the term.

You are proposing there is something other than the cosmos in which we exist. Fine, there is nothing wrong with that, theoretical cosmologists do that all the time. The difference is that the theoreticians propose that there are some measurable effects within our cosmos - be it amendments or structures within the CMB, white holes, black hole decay or the decay time of the proton. What you propose is that there is something beyond the cosmos that has no measurable effect on the cosmos, nothing; there are no fingerprints in the CMB, no stars that explode or decay on an unexplainable schedule, no new arms being grown, no talking snakes or donkeys and the list goes on.

Given that we exist in a cosmos I can accept that there might be others. Equally I can accept the idea of a foundational dimension from which all else springs. But the point is that you have to define a term for the all, you cannot just abrogate responsibility and say "God is outside the universe/foundational dimension". To just declare He doesn't exist in space or time and cannot ever be detected is magical thinking of the first order.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. I'm saying, at the very least, the cosmos itself is the effect.

Just as, in your terms, the cosmos would be the effect of the foundational dimension.

I'm not saying that God is outside all existence, as some do. I'm saying God IS all existence, but that at the beginning, all existence was concentrated in one thing (what kind of thing that was I have no words to describe, because all we know is the world of divisible matter. So the best I can do is "not divisible" or "not material&quot . If you want to call that one thing "foundational dimension," that's fine. You can call it "Santa Claus" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" if you wish.

[intaglio]

17. Now you are claiming that there is nothing supernatural about the creation

If that is so the effect of that should be measurable

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. And it is, we can measure the cosmos in all sorts of ways.

The cosmos is the effect, the cosmos is measurable. No problem there. I'm not using "supernatural" because I'm not claiming that God is non-existent or non-causal, and that's what "supernatural" means to you. I don't think that's a very good way to define it (it seems misleading since most people aren't saying "God is non-existent or non-causal" when they say "supernatural&quot but whatever, I'd rather get my ideas across clearly than argue terminology.

[intaglio]

20. But you have assigned a set of starting conditions to the cosmos

and the effect of those starting conditions will vary from others. Therefore God is not supernatural should be detectable.

To quote your interlocutor

person 2: but methodological naturalism is one of the tenets of science, so for any phenomena I name as evidence, a supernatural explanation will be presumed invalid. You're begging the question.

We have run the gamut and demonstrated that any act of god will be detectable and therefore not supernatural.

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. Only if you have those others available for comparison.

If you don't, or if there is only one initial starting condition, period, then not. So no, we haven't demonstrated your assumption ("everything natural is detectable&quot to be true. And your use of "supernatural" is idiosyncratic, so all that proves is that I can express my ideas using different language.

[Brettongarcia]

27. The point is that usually even our "supernatural" God is said to effect visible material things

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Therefore the supernatural God should be detectable, in the actions of material things. So that even a supernatural god can be to some extent, known through science.

The God of the Bible furthermore, would seem to be such a god. And Paul argues precisely that even his invisible spirit is known through the things that are made; material things. Just as the invisible wind is known by the material leaves, say, we see it blowing around.

We are not playing games with the word "supernatural." I am saying that probably all known gods - including the God of the Bible - normally interface with material reality at some point. And therefore should be detectable by science, or the study of material things.

And if he is not detectable? Then he does not exist, after all. Or if the material things he had made are often not good? Then he is not good.

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. Things only exist when we have the ability to detect them?

That would cause all sorts of difficulties if it were true, including the question of how the universe existed before anything living existed to detect it.

And God's character depends on how good the creation happens to be on any given day? That implies that the universe (or cosmos, if you like) preceded and controls God, which doesn't work in the case of a creator god.

I think both you and intaglio are working with a physical model where "God effects" exist as interruptions against a background of "not God" effects, and so comparisons can be made, and the "God effects" can be detected if they are there. I'm not using that physical model (I do use that idea in a moral model, however, where acts of injustice and hate exist as non-god effects against a background of God's effects of goodness) In my model, God creates out of Godself, and so the very things you take to be background and "not God", I see as effects of God. I gave the example above of natural laws. I say they are sustainable and coherent because they are expressions of God's will. The laws themselves are detectable through science, but the idea that they are expressions of God's will is not, because we have no access to non-God universes to check them for natural laws (and indeed, no guarantee that there are such things as "non-God universes." If God creates every universe that exists, our comparison attempt is frustrated).

[edhopper]

41. There is a difference between

the possibility of being able to detect something and the existing ability to detect.

Long before life on earth, the possible ability to detect things existed, there was just no one to use it

We have the possibility to discover many things we haven't yet. Higgs Bosons were always detectable, we just didn't have the technology to see them until recently..

So the argument that if God has had any effect on the physical world, we should be able to discern it holds.

Now a God that simple created this universe and then never interferes with it at any way, would be hard to detect if at all.

Though why propose one when there is no need for an explanation is another question.

[Htom Sirveaux]

42. The argument only holds if you assume

that our technology is or will eventually become infallible. God-like, you might even say.
-
I don't understand that last thing you said. The God you propose would explain why the universe exists. Is the universe not a thing in need of an explanation? Besides which, science exists to detect hidden regularities through repeated observation over time. Miracles of the kind you are thinking of ("interferences&quot are not regularities, by definition. As you said, they are interruptions in regularities. Therefore, even if they exist, they are not scientific concepts, and science would be incapable of detecting them as miracles (it could possibly detect the actual effect, but the explanation would be another regularity, not an agent capable of temporarily altering regularities).

So if the only evidence of God you accept is miracles, and the only evidence of miracles you accept is scientific evidence, then you've presupposed the answer to the question "does God exist" before any discussion has started. Claims of "I would believe in God if there was evidence of God" do not fully capture the situation.

[edhopper]

43. Not what I am saying at all

Don't have time for this back and forth unfortunately. Sorry

Perhaps someone else who understands my statement will take up the discussion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

44. That's alright, it's gotten kind of unwieldy.

Engaging three different people can easily lead to misunderstandings (I don't think I was clear who the "you" was in my last two sentences. It referred to a hypothetical "you" that I was discussing in my very first reply to intaglio in this thread, not "you, Edhopper&quot . Catch you later, man!

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Well you are right. There could be an itty bitty teeny weeny god.

One so slight that we will never be able to detect its minute random and exceedingly rare perturbations of the universe. The only miracle is that His Insignificance managed to create the whole mess. It isn't clear what this concession gains you, it certainly isn't the Abrahamic deity.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Everything is natural, including belief in the supernatural.

Belief is as natural as the flowers in the field and like those flowers it has its seasons.

[gcomeau]

46. Nope

"Agnostics do not believe in a god"

I personally know at least dozen agnostics who believe in God. Agnosticism has not one thing to do with whether or not you believe in God.

Please distinguish between beliefs or lack thereof about the existence of something (atheism/theism) and beliefs about the *nature* of something (regardless of whether you believe that something actually exists) (gnosticism/agnosticism)

"they are atheist awaiting gnosis."

No agnostic is "awaiting gnosis". Agnostics by definition believe the nature of God to render certain knowledge about that entity impossible to acquire. Why would they wait for an impossible thing?

[intaglio]

58. I did say that it was my view however ...

Question, what does agnostic mean? It means without knowledge, belief or revelation in the divine, a-gnosis. If you ask an agnostic theist whether they believe in God they will say something on the lines of "I think there is (or maybe) a God/Gods," but thinking there might be is not believing there is.

Now, c_bayer has a different view from myself, and we have argued about it at length and warren_stupidity has put up a Venn diagram displaying his thoughts but this is my particular view.

[gcomeau]

61. Agnostic means...

"It means without knowledge, belief or revelation in the divine, a-gnosis"... because said knowledge cannot be had due to the claimed nature of the deity in question.


The latter part makes it a philosophical position warranting an "-ism".


Without the latter part there is already a word for that state of affairs. "Ignorance".

[intaglio]

67. It is always open to the deity to reveal themselves

or are you saying that deities are, indeed, powerless? If that is your assertion then I refer you to the Epicurus

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

You claim is that a deity, if it existed, is restricted and if it is restricted, why are you calling it a deity? In either event there is no faith (a word you have avoided) in agnosticism only a philosophical conviction. The agnostic is without faith and has not had the existence of a deity revealed.

[cbayer]

4. Agnosticism is the only reasonable position because no one knows.

No one. Anyone who says they do is full of it.

In terms of theism and atheism, I think there is a spectrum. This spectrum may be similar to sexuality. Some people are very far on the extremes of belief or non-belief, while many are somewhere in the grey area.

That is why I object to any insistence that one choose. It's like telling someone to choose between being straight and gay. People just are who they are, and any of us live in grey areas. "Do you believe in god?". "I don't know" is a reasonable and acceptable answer in my opinion.

Then there is anti-theism and anti-atheism. This is merely intolerance and sometimes bigotry of those who are different. While there may be legitimate reasons to be against some aspects/expressions of theism or atheism, there is no justification for taking a stance against those positions in general.

[Htom Sirveaux]

5. Do you see theism/atheism more as matters of identity

than claims about the nature of reality backed by reasons? I ask because I thought I saw that implication in your comparison to the sexuality spectrum.

[cbayer]

8. That is a great question and one I have thought about.

It seems to me that people don't choose whether to be believers or not, they just are. Could I choose to believe? I don't think so.

So to me it's no character flaw or failing or weakness or greater insight or more reason or anything to be one or the other. You just are.

So, yes, I think it may be a matter of identity, which is why I think I get so fired up when people denigrate others for being one or the other.

It is also why I argue for the grey areas. Like other aspects of our identity, some are not always that clear.

OTOH, I think one does choose to hate, be prejudiced or be a bigot. I object to those that do this, but not to their personal positions on the issue of belief or faith.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. That would seem to imply that when people shift positions,

they just do, as well. I think at least some people don't experience their shifts that way. Instead, they do perceive that they are attaining greater insight, at least compared to their previous position. Do you think that perception is misleading?

[cbayer]

12. Another good question. In that there may be a possibility of "evolving"

into a new position, that would make it distinctly different than sexuality.

I don't wish to make the two things equivalent. I just think there may be some similarities when it comes to identity.

There could be an experience or a set of experiences that changes one from believer to non-believer, or vice versa.

That is why I think agnosticism is the most logical position - leaving the door open for experiences that may take one from a neutral position to a position of theism or atheism.

[pinto]

15. It may be more a piece of exploring one's identity. Sexual identity and religious preference

are very distinctly different, imo. But I see a similarity in the process of finding out what's what and what it means for you.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. I see. So are you saying that its wrong to call

someone an "atheist" because they don't believe in gods before they've made up their minds about whether they do or don't, and THAT'S why agnosticism is a distinct stance on its own apart from the whole grid that other people like create using gnostic/agnostic and atheist/theist?

[pinto]

21. No. I choose to let people call themselves whatever it is they prefer. And I'll follow their lead.

My take is that agnosticism is a default starting point. "I don't know" is a start. It's an opening. That's true in many venues, I think.

People move on from there. Or don't. None of it is wrong. It just is what it is. I'm talking in general terms, not individual specifics.

(aside) Some of the semantic discussions about terminology, who's who and what's what gets a bit convoluted. If you call yourself an atheist, I take it at face value. As with any other self definition you choose.

[Htom Sirveaux]

23. As a general rule, I agree that people's self-definitions should be respected.

There are exceptions, though. (Randall Terry tried to run in a few Democratic primaries against Obama. His attempt at trolling probably shouldn't be equated with legitimate self-definition as a Democrat).

[pinto]

24. Aghh, Randall Terry. The Operation Rescue guy. Yeah, he was simply trolling.

Blatantly.

[cbayer]

29. Again, I don't mean to equate them, only to point out

that there may be some similarities and to make the point that it's not always a choice when it comes to religion.

[Brettongarcia]

28. It is possible to show that most ideas of gods must be wrong

If someone says that God is a giant pink caterpillar who lives on the surface of the moon, it is easy to prove that is wrong.

Furthermore as it turns out, even our "supernatural" God of the Bible, is said to effect visible, material things; even to have created the physical, material world. And so he or she should be knowable, by his "fruits": the physical material things that he has made. That can be detected and confirmed or disconfirmed, by science.

By the way? The word "bigot" is now suddenly becoming popular here. This word is one of the most common clichés used by believers, against nonbelievers today. But I believe that the word "bigot" is selfdeconstructive; it is itself, bigoted. Since it arbitrarily denies the validity of other's views. Asserting they are unreasonable. Even when they are reasonable enough.

Here for example, it is being asserted with great, inflexible, dogmatic certainty, that God cannot be disproved. It is being asserted here, that no one could possible say otherwise. And that anyone who says otherwise is wrong. And it does not seem to matter how many times we present here arguments to the contrary.

What should we call your inflexible dogmatism, that condemns all others arbitrarily? And that brooks no dissent?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. "No one. Anyone who says they do is full of it."

And you feel this way about religious people as well, for the gnostic end of the gnostic/agnostic spectrum?

[cbayer]

26. My statement was meant for both believers and non-believers. Sorry if that was not clear.

I've always had that position. Were you not aware?

[trotsky]

35. There are many believers on DU who are certain god exists.

But you never, EVER attack them like you do atheists. You'll have to forgive people for misreading you.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I have not seen you express it adamantly toward believers here.

Perhaps I missed it.

[cbayer]

39. You missed it, but that is not surprising.

[longship]

32. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic, because I don't claim to know. Atheist, because I believe that the burden of proof is on theist's rather miraculous claims and atheism is closer to the null hypothesis.

Then, there's all the pious frauds which kind of undermines all their theological arguments. (E.G., Benny Hinn, Buddha Boy, Ken Ham, all manner of others). For me, atheism is an easy response. I don't believe any of it. But that doesn't mean that I know there's no gods.



Hope you are well.

[cbayer]

33. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think they

can be independent.

Specifically, I think that one can be an agnostic and neither a theist nor an atheist.

I think most atheists are also agnostic, but many theists really think they know.

I am quite well, thanks. Long lazy days in a beautiful environment with side trips to fascinating places every other day or so. That plus my italian cooking getting better and better makes for a pretty blissful existence.

FWIW, my karma is good.

What are you doing up at this time of day??

[longship]

34. Early to bed, early to rise...

I get up when I wake up, often very early.

Afternoon is often nap time, right after lunch.

Morning is

[pinto]

14. I think agnosticism is the default position.

[cbayer]

30. I think that is an excellent way to put it.

And, as you say above, some people move beyond that to a position of belief of non-belief.

Some will make the case that atheism is the default position. However, because atheism is often an actively chosen position and carries more weight than just plain "nothing", agnosticism makes more sense as the default position.

[gcomeau]

48. Sigh...

Agnosticism is FAR MORE of an actively chosen position than atheism.

Atheism simply require a person to *not* adopt one specific belief. That's it.

Agnosticism requires a sophisticated evaluation about the claimed nature of deity in order to arrive at a conclusion that one believes that nature to render the acquisition of certain knowledge about whether said deity exists impossible to acquire. (At least if the person saying they're an agnostic has any clue what the word means and isn't using it as idiotic shorthand for a philosophical shoulder shrug and a mumbled "I dunno".)

[cbayer]

57. Sigh...

I see your point, but disagree with atheism always just being a default position. Some people actively choose it, wear it as a label and adopt it as a central part of their identity.

And for some agnosticism can be as you describe, but for others its just a "I don't really care enough to even think about it" position, whether that suits your definition or not.

The problem lies in trying to pigeon hole people into these categories when there are so many gray areas. One might even say 50 shades of grey, though I think that's a gross underestimate, lol.

I would be glad to discuss this with you, but will not return to this subthread if you make it personal and become derisive.

[gcomeau]

60. Uh huh...

"And for some agnosticism can be as you describe, but for others its just a "I don't really care enough to even think about it" position,"

Otherwise knows as mislabeled atheism.

And there are no grey areas in binary solution sets, which is what theism/atheism are. Every time I have seen anyone try to claim grey areas they are doing so by dealing with the answers to the wrong question. Such as how confident they are God exists or doesn't exist, which is a question nobody is asking when they ask if they're atheist or theist.

[cbayer]

63. Uh huh...

And there is no authority in this area as to what is a binary set or what the right questions are. Those that want things to be black and white will claim that this is one, but everyone else knows that it is full of grey areas.

I guess if one has to have a battle cry, this is as good a one as any, but I don't see any minds being changed.

[gcomeau]

66. Actually,

Math and logic are the authorities on what a binary solution set are. And the meaning of the words are the authorities on what the correct question is.



If you can find an official definition *anywhere* that states theism means "the certainty that a deity exists" or that atheism means "the certainty that is does not"... or any other state that is not belief which allows for degrees of uncertainty between the two poles, by all means present it. Otherwise you have no ground to stand on here because whether you have a belief IS binary. You do, or you do not. There is no third alternative state. You have never presented one when asked to and you won't now.

[cbayer]

68. No, but I can find you lots of definitions of agnosticism that sees it as a stand

alone premise and not just a modifier of one's position regarding theism or atheism.

If I read you correctly, you insist that one must either be a theist or an atheist. If your entire premise is based on that, then you have planted a flag that many don't recognize. Some people just don't know if they believe or not, or they may believe is something, but they are not sure if it's a god or not.

Your insistence that no one can occupy that state is dogmatic. I don't need to present a third alternative state. YOu are surrounded by people in that state.

[gcomeau]

69. I'm certain you can. The error is amazingly popular.

And being unable to answer my challenge on the meaning of theism and atheism is the demonstration which proves my point that those definitions of agnosticism are irrational and wrong. You can call something a stance between atheism and theism all day long but if there is NO SUCH PLACE then you're incorrect about standing there.

Just like you can get as many people as you want to declare that "Accountant" means "Person with the magical ability to transform gold into chocolate pudding by licking it with their magic tongue". you could even, theoretically, get so many people to say so that the dictionary will begin listing it as as what people mean when they use the word.

But anyone who then says they ARE an "accountant" using that definition is full of crap. Because there's no such thing.

Your insistence that no one can occupy that state is dogmatic.

No, it's clearly demonstrable. And I have done so. Repeatedly.

The insistence on declaring a definition of agnosticism that makes no sense based on nothing but a desire to do so and appeal to popular support on the other hand, THAT sounds an awful lot like dogmatism.

[cbayer]

70. Ok, keep up the good fight.

You haven't convinced me, but keep trying.

[gcomeau]

71. Ok, and you keep refusing to make an argument...

...and just making declarations that anyone who says you're wrong is intolerant and dogmatic no matter how thoroughly they demonstrate the point then walking away.

[cbayer]

72. Agreed - however you want to paint it works for me.

See you next time.

[gcomeau]

76. How about not?

If all you're ever going to do is refuse to defend your position or to deal with any demonstration that it clearly wrong then I offer the suggestion that next time you don't bother posting on the subject since you've clearly indicated you're not interested in any productive discussion of the topic anyway.

[cbayer]

77. That works for me as well. It won't keep me from responding to your posts, but

feel free not to answer back if that works better for you.

And I think the only thing that would probably work for you is my saying that I am clearly wrong and you are clearly right.

I will post on whatever I want in the future. Not agreeing with your ideas on this does not amount to not being interested in a a productive discussion.

It just may not be possible with you.

[gcomeau]

79. Or...

"And I think the only thing that would probably work for you is my saying that I am clearly wrong and you are clearly right. "

You could try, just one time, actually dealing with the demonstration I have given you and trying to show that it's incorrect. Or, and it's a crazy thought, making an argument for your own position that goes beyond (to parphrase) "cause people say so that's why, be more open minded!"

[cbayer]

82. But I do that all the time. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into your

schema.

When that happens, it is the easiest thing in the world to say that I'm just not dealing with what you have to say.

I don't agree with you. I think you are wrong. I may not be right, but I clearly hear your "demonstration" and I think it's wrong.

You can spend the rest of your existence making this argument. It makes no difference. I am who I am and others are who they are. They will not and should not be defined by you.

Here's to all the agnostics who are neither believers or non-believers, including my personal hero Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[gcomeau]

85. I have yet to ever see you do anything of the kind.

Including in this very exchange, where you have persistently avoided doing so even when directly challenged to. Right from your first post to this last one.

[cbayer]

87. I understand that. You, like most people, only see what you want to see.

Unless I say that you are right and I am wrong, you will never see it.

There is no other satisfactory response.

What? Do you think I am going to present an argument in which the heavens will open up and you will finally see how wrong you are?

I have absolutely no hope of that happening.

Not giving you the answer you want is not persistently avoiding the question. It's just not giving you the answer you want.

I don't expect you to understand any of this, but it is entirely consistent with the little scenario between person 1 and person 2 that you keep putting up. You think you are somehow the winner in that debate, while the reality is quite the opposite.

[gcomeau]

88. Sigh.

"What? Do you think I am going to present an argument in which the heavens will open up and you will finally see how wrong you are?
"

As I already stated, I expect you to post ANY ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER.


Which is something you are STILL doing everything you can to avoid. Right here, yet another post devoid of any attempt to argue your position. Just like the last one. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one before that. And, almost certainly, the next one as well...


All you appear to be interested in doing is making excuses for avoiding dealing with the issue while smugly putting on this act about how mature and above it all you are and accusing other people of "dogmatism" for not letting you get away with it.

"You think you are somehow the winner in that debate, while the reality is quite the opposite."

In order to think I was the winner of the debate we would have to be debating. That involves a two way exchange of argument and counter argument. Not a one way flow of argument and a return flood of "Oh I just don't agree... other people also don't agree... say whatever you want... you're so dogmatic... if it makes you feel better you can think you won... you should try being more open minded... shades of grey... etc."


Make. An. Argument. I dare you.

[cbayer]

91. Step over this line!! I dare you.

Bullying in it's most primitive form.

I am truly done with you for now. Perhaps you will be more receptive to actual conversation sometime in the future.

In the meantime, I will take my smug and very agnostic self on down the road.

[gcomeau]

92. Prediction verified.

Another post, with no attempt to defend your position or make an argument anywhere in sight. Just another set of excuses for not doing it... and another holier than thou begging out of the discussion.


You simply confirm my points with every post you write.

[Alittleliberal]

78. You made the best possible argument

This one's a lost cause

[cbayer]

83. That's right. I'm a lost cause.

Me and so many people you can't even count them.

And what are you, Alittleliberal? How do you define yourself?

[Brettongarcia]

31. Agnosticism is a good default position. Until evidence begins to pile up against religion

[Lordquinton]

36. Unfortunately Theism is the default in our world

Thus religious privilege, etc.

[cbayer]

37. Default or just majority?

Default means what you are if you don't choose. I don't see theism as that unless you mean specifically what others might assume about you.

Majority also leads to privilege, but default doesn't.

[Lordquinton]

100. assumed default

Religious until proven otherwise. Just like heterosexual, or cisgender. Forgot a word there.

[cbayer]

109. I agree with that.

[gcomeau]

47. It can't possibly be the default position.

Becoming an agnostic requires a sophisticated evaluation of the claimed nature of deity in order to come to a conclusion about whether that nature precludes certain knowledge regarding it's existence from being possible to acquire.


I happen to be agnostic (and atheist), but agnosticism is in no way a "default position".

[pinto]

49. I meant it in the sense of "I don't know". Which I think is a common default position.

[gcomeau]

50. Agnosticism does not mean "I dunno" in any legitimate philosophical context.

And the popular insistence on using that way is a plague on rational thought.

[pinto]

51. ? Doesn't it mean "not knowing"? Or acknowledging doubt, uncertainty, or perhaps disinterest?

[gcomeau]

52. It means...

...the belief that the nature of God, as that entity is described and defined, makes it *impossible* to *ever* gain certain knowledge of whether or not it exists.


(Yes, as a *consequence* of that all Agnostics will of course say they don't know whether or not God exists since there is no alternative, but that's not what their agnosticism is)

[pinto]

53. OK.

This seems a little pointless, along the lines of "what is the meaning of is?". And convoluted. I'm fine with it all. My take, your take and others' takes.

[gcomeau]

54. It's not at all pointless.

The meaning of words matters. And the constant attempt to define agnosticism as nothing more than an "I dunno" and a shoulder shrug is ridiculous and irrational, generally engaged in by groups of people who have no real motivation beyond trying to avoid giving any real thought to the subject or be put in a position of defending any seriously thought out position while at the same time acting like they're somehow the deep and mature grown up party in the room looking down on the squabbling children on either side of the atheism/theism divide even thought they themselves are atheists or theists.

"I dunno" is not a philosophical stance, it's a state of ignorance. It does not warrant an "-ism".

[pinto]

56. OK. I'm an agnostic, not out of ignorance or irrationality, but out of a reasoned point of view.

Yeah, "I don't know" may be a simplistic representation. Maybe a more assertive position would be a simple refusal to believe or disbelieve in matters of a deity. And beyond that, a choice to set aside what you term "the squabbling children on either side of the atheism/theism divide".

And, as an aside, an attempt to set aside petty, personal characterizations of anyone along any spectrum of theological discussions.

Yeah, the meaning of words matter. Yours, in this context, are belittling. And they seem purposely so. No where near supporting any seriously thought out position.

I'm open to discussion. It's an interesting topic, no? I made a passing comment. No more nor less. I'm not interested in trading personal put-downs. What's that worth?

If I misread your post, mea culpa, I took it personally. Could be way off base. Wouldn't be the first time.

[gcomeau]

59. Again...

"Maybe a more assertive position would be a simple refusal to believe or disbelieve in matters of a deity"

Belief or disbelief in a deity are irrelevant to whether you are an agnostic. Doesn't have one single thing to do with agnosticism. I know many agnostic theists and many agnostic atheists. Those two things are completely and totally decoupled.

Agnosticism is a belief about the nature of deity according to how it is defined and described (regardless of whether that entity being described is real or fictional), not about the existence of deity.

And to continue on since your comment seemed to imply it, atheism is not disbelief in said existence. It is lack of belief, which is significantly different. Agnosticism is not the neutral ground between theism and atheism because there is no ground whatsoever to occupy between theism and atheism. They describe a binary solution set. You either possess a belief that a deity exists, or you do not possess that belief. It's just that simple.


People who try to claim otherwise almost inevitably end up being person 2 in the following conversation:


Person 1: "So are you a theist or an atheist?"

Person 2: "I'm an agnostic."

Person 1: "Ummm... ok. But are you a theist or an atheist?"

Person 2: "Neither, I'm an agnostic."

Person 1: "Those have nothing to do with each other, that's like saying 'neither, I'm an accountant'. Do you believe a deity exists?"

Person 2: "I don't know."

Person 1: "What do you mean you don't know? How can you not know?"

Person 2: "Nobody really knows if a deity exists."

Person 1: "I agree. But I didn't ask you 'Does a deity exist?'. I asked you "DO YOU BELIEVE a deity exists?'"

Person 2: "I said I don't know!"

Person 1: "When you were answering the wrong question. How can you not know if you have a belief? I'm asking you about the content of your own thoughts, how can you not know the content of your own thoughts? That's the one thing in the entire universe you should have no problem having knowledge of. Do you have multiple personalities and you think one of the other ones might be hiding a belief in a deity from the rest of your personalities or something???? Because otherwise yes you do know."

Person 2: "Well what if I'm just not sure? A person can't just be not sure?"

Person 1: "Of course they can. But I didn't ask you if you were sure either. Theism isn't being SURE God exists and atheism isn't being SURE God doesn't. Belief has nothing to do with surety. You either have a belief or you don't. Do you have a belief that a deity exist?"

Person 2: "I don't know!"

Person 1: "Oh FFS..."


Etc, etc, with Person 2 consistently refusing to answer a simple yes/no question that there's no way they don't actually know the answer to... because they rather transparently only desire to avoid being identified as belonging to either group.

I have had the above conversation more times than I care to count, and it always goes almost the exact same way...

[cbayer]

64. If you keep having the same outcome from this conversation, what do you

conclude from that?

[gcomeau]

65. I already stated what I conclude from that.

Right there at the bottom of the post where conclusions are commonly found.


And every iteration increases my confidence in that conclusion.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Some people are really invested in evading the question of whether or not god exists.

[cbayer]

74. And some people just don't know whether god exists or not.

Why do you think someone would be invested in evading the question?

I'm thinking that maybe they don't want to be assigned a team or take a definitive stand in what they see as quicksand.

One does not have to believe or not believe. It is definitely not a part of some people's identities.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. If they dont know, then they don't believe.

This shit isn't hard.

[cbayer]

81. This shit is hard and it is simply lazy to think otherwise.

It is possible to not know if there is a god or not and not also not know if you believe or not. You can not tell me or anyone else that they don't believe. You don't believe and that is about as far as you can take it.

That shit is complicated, but that's just the way it is. To make is so definitive is a mistake.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. It's a boolean proposition. It is not 'lazy' to call it what it is.

If you are a theist, you believe. If you do not, you are an atheist. That's it. Not more complex than that. To pretend otherwise is to ascribe meaning to 'atheist' that the word does not warrant.

Theism is BELIEF. Atheism is a LACK OF belief. And yes, I am yelling. Because you refuse over and over to recognize that.

[cbayer]

95. Exactly, and a boolean proposition has no place when discussing religion.

This is the bottom line - not everyone believes or doesn't believe. Some live in a murky grey area where they might of sort of sometimes belief something that may or may not be god or the equivalent to god or they might not, they just don't know and can't be sure.

It's just that complex.

Those of you that insist on someone taking a hard position have an agenda. Full stop.

It's not that I refuse to recognize that, it's that I fully and actively reject it.

So, yell all you want. It won't make a bit of difference for those that do not describe themselves as either theists or atheists, no matter how badly you and others want it to be the case.

You are an atheist. Good for you. Maybe you will always be that or maybe not. You may just find yourself in the grey zone at some point. People that protest loudly often do.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. There you go, mixing knowing and believing again.

They are not the same thing. One is not required for the other.

Try again.

[cbayer]

97. No, I'm not mixing them. They are entirely different things.

And I can sort of know, but not really and sort of believe, but not really. I'm just not sure, but I do know that I don't know.

I'm really just not able to take a position.

Trying again, captain!

:salute:

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Yes they are different things.

Having nothing to do with one another. And you just used not knowing as an objection to picking belief or non-belief. Knowing or not knowing is not relevant to one or the other.

You can pick up a weight off the ground (exert effort) or you can leave it on the ground. Having FAITH is much the same. It is an effort, picking up that idea and holding it.

It is entirely possible to not pick it up, and reserve judgment. But that's still an atheist, someone without belief.

[cbayer]

108. Having faith is nothing like picking a weight up off the ground.

It is complex and not necessarily a straight yes or no.

It has degrees, while picking up a weight does not. Are you a strong picker up of weights or a weak picker up of weights? Do you sometimes just rush over and pick up that weight and at other times just look at it and let it be? Do some kinds of weight speak to you and ask to be picked up, while others hold no interest?

Having faith is more like being in love, and that is a state that you sometimes can not either confirm or deny. You just aren't sure.

You are an atheist. You may not know if there is a god or not, but you know you are an atheist. That's great, although it may not always be that way. Others just don't know. It's not a big deal…. really.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. My point about picking up a weight is that belief isn't automatic.

it's a positive assertion by the belief-holder. Sometimes I use the analogy of a rocket, where belief is a lift-off, non-belief is sitting on the Launchpad still. (Especially useful since, at any given time, a non-believer may electively choose any faith at all.)

It is a choice, an act of volition. Whether inescapably inculcated by social pressures or not, we are not born with these religions in mind, with faith in place. (We do, as a species, seem to have a predisposition to belief in supernatural things, particularly religion, but that isn't the same thing.)


I do not grok your usage of love. Again, love is an active belief. Can you articulate more, because I don't see the difference here. How can one not be sure if one is in love? If one is not sure, seems to me that person would pretty much be considered to not be in love. And if you said 'you're not in love with him/her' and he/she takes offense to that assessment, that probably clarifies matters right there.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in any claims of supernatural gods. My affiliation with atheist groups/identity is quite another act of volition, separate from the simple fact that I possess nothing anyone would describe as 'belief', in this category. Knowing for sure if there is a god or not is not germane to the question of whether I believe. Since I do not believe, I am an atheist. Even if I was something else, like a humanist or whatever. I'm an atheist because I have not chosen to pick up that weight. The rocket did not launch. I do not believe.

It really is that simple. Any other definition is a cloudy, tortured usage of the word that makes the world suck a little bit more by layering on unnecessary ambiguity.

[cbayer]

111. While you can make the argument that atheism is just a passive non-position, the

problem is that it really isn't.

As long as there are organizations and symbols and internet rooms and avatars and user names that declare atheism in a very active way, it can not be held to be a fully passive position.

Your semantic argument may be correct, but it is meaningless in the real world. You want to say that people with no position hold your position, but that's just not the case.

And frankly, the more you and other activist atheists push on it, the more I think people will back away.

You and the small handful of others who still feel this is an important argument can carry on with the crusade. In the meantime, I and most of the world are going to continue to look at agnosticism as a separate category and know that some people are neither atheists or theists.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. That's simply untrue.

But if you want to try and make it my fault that it's not a passive position, ok, I guess.

"In the meantime, I and most of the world are going to continue to look at agnosticism as a separate category and know that some people are neither atheists or theists."

I too, like to double down after acknowledging the other position is 'semantically correct'.

[cbayer]

114. Well good. I knew we had something in common.

[Demit]

80. If I were Person 2 I would've walked away from Person 1 long before the end.

Person 1 is a belligerent asshole.

[cbayer]

84. And this kind of badgering rarely if ever wins the battle.

It's all talking and no listening.

[Demit]

90. And it's possible to believe sometimes, and sometimes not.

And sometimes part of it is wanting to believe. All in the course of wondering what the truth is.

I only just wandered into this thread. Since I usually veer far away from religious stuff, having had a forced 12 years of it. I agree with you: the insistence on a narrow definition of agnosticism is a form of dogma in itself.

I probably fail that poster's strict definition of "sophisticated evaluation," whatever it is according to him. And I don't really care. I don't think a lot of people do, which is why he is always left to argue with himself.

[cbayer]

93. You and I are on the same page with this.

This is not something that is written in stone. It is something that is fluid and changing for many people.

Demanding that one take a position is badgering and expresses an underlying agenda that is harsh and rigid.

You will definitely fail in this member's opinion, but it is up to you whether that means anything or not. I think most people are comfortable with their beliefs or lack of beliefs or just with saying they don't know. It is only those at the extremes that insist that you are either one of them or one of the others.

I understand why you stay away, but welcome to the group anyway. I hope you will consider participating from time to time.

[Demit]

98. To me, the knowing would trump believing. Believing would be unnecessary if you knew.

That's why (I suspect) the people whom the poster wants a certain answer from aren't giving it to him. They're more interested in whether it is true or not. If it isn't true, then they would have wasted psychic energy believing & been proven foolish; if it is true, then what difference would belief have made? It would be irrelevant.

It is fascinating to me that there are centuries worth of philosophical thought & argument on whether God exists when, in the end, no one knows or can know. "You have to have faith," I was taught. At some point in my life I decided, "No, see, I really don't." So I make do with the wonder—in all senses of the word.

[cbayer]

107. That's why I think agnostic is the most reasonable position one can take.

Is there a god or gods? I don't know.

The next reasonable question might be, do you think there is a god or gods? We don't really have terms for yes and not to that, but maybe theist and atheist are the best terms.

The least reasonable question is, do you believe there is a god or gods? That's a big one. That's taking a specific position.

That's where faith comes into play, and some people just aren't ready to either invoke or reject that.

You have found the place that works for you, and that is what matters.

[gcomeau]

105. And when you believe you believe.. and when you don't you don't.

Hey, look how that works!

[gcomeau]

86. Oh really?

Please point out what aspect of asking really simple straightforward questions makes Person 1 "a belligerent asshole"?

[Demit]

89. Pretty much everything Person 1 says after Person 2 said they don't know if they believe.

For example, this: "Do you have multiple personalities and you think one of the other ones might be hiding a belief in a deity from the rest of your personalities or something????"

Is NOT asking a simple straightforward question. It is snide in the extreme.

[gcomeau]

102. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about tone in written text.

That is a dead serious question in that context, as I can think of very few possible ways in which one could legitimately claim to be unaware of their own thoughts and that is one of them. And using it as an example illustrates the nature of the problem with claiming that "I don't know" is a legitimate answer to an inquiry about whether you possess a belief or not.

[Demit]

103. Utter bullshit.

[gcomeau]

104. Wow, substantive response.

But "Person 1" is the belligerent asshole...yup...

[Demit]

112. Thank you! I believe in being substantive with as few words as possible.

[gcomeau]

115. Since you appear to share another posters insistence...

...on avoiding dealing with information contrary to your position by dancing around the issue let me be more direct.


You avoided addressing the very clear demonstration of the error in using agnosticism as an alternative to theism or atheism first by just making up some excuse to take offense to avoid the issue.


Then when it was pointed out to you that what you had declared to be belligerent snark was, in fact, a sincere and straightforward question and illustration of a point you switched from finding belligerence too offensive to warrant a response from such a cultured and well mannered person as yourself to thinking that a response consisting of nothing but the two words "utter bullshit" was an entirely sufficient reply to a reasoned argument.


And now you are playing snide little games with deliberate obtuseness attempting to be clever while still avoiding the fact that you still can't actually address the content of the post you initially replied to.

[Demit]

116. I don't agree with your premise, so there's nothing to address.

You can call what you've been saying information, but I don't agree that it is. I think it is a matter of semantics. When the definition of a word begins to change, it will change no matter how you rail against it. Similarly, when a growing group of people are carving out a position that is unimaginable to you, but comfortable for them, it will not matter how you rail against them for not fitting into your narrow construct. You think they're wrong, but they don't care if you do.

I don't know what you are like in real life, but on the page you are an immediately disagreeable & pugnacious personality. You demand that people engage with you only on your terms. I don't accept your terms. Please do me the courtesy of not responding to me again, so that I don't have to look at that yellow button on my home page & feel compelled to see what long-winded bellicose repetitious thing you've written this time. Declare yourself the winner, of a fight no one is interested in having with you, and move on.

[gcomeau]

117. There's always something to address.

For example, justifying why you don't agree with the premise. That's something to address.

"When the definition of a word begins to change, it will change no matter how you rail against it."

I am not arguing about whether the definition of the word has been added to. (It has not changed. It has simply been given an alternate definition by the uninformed who are unaware of the original, meaningful definition). I am arguing about whether the new additional definition of the word is *rational* and can be meaningfully applied to real people to describe real states. (Which it cannot).

"You think they're wrong, but they don't care if you do. "

That is just another dodge. Instead of dealing with criticism of a position just declare that any criticism is irrelevant because you don't want to listen to it and your position is your position because you want it to be. LALALALALALALA.

Yes, people can do that. But I will not be expected to just act like that's a mature and rational approach to any dispute... that's the kind of bullshit approach to the world that gives us things like the Fox News Reality Bubble. I am not going to pretend that's ok just because it's people here doing it instead. If a person's position can't withstand engaging with serious criticism that should be setting off warning bells in their head, not causing them to burrow deeper into their comfortable little cocoon and clamp their hands over their ears.


And I'm going to keep right on poking those bubbles with sharp objects. No matter whose little reality-denying world it contains.

"You demand that people engage with you only on your terms."

Asking you to present some kind of argument for your position or against mine instead of just avoiding doing so with a bunch of excuses while declaring me wrong by decree is not some unreasonable demand for you to "engage on my terms". It's an expectation that if you're going to participate in the discussion then *engage at all*. Don't just show up to tell me all about how you're not going to deal with anything I'm saying. You can throw around all the accusations about my grating personality you want but THAT is profoundly rude and disrespectful and it was your opening move.

[trotsky]

62. Fantastic post. n/t

[randys1]

101. All I know is I get on a plane and say to myself "hope the plane dont crash"

which I stole from Bill Cosby

and I used to pray to god to keep me safe, and now it pisses me off that i cant do that anymore, given the fact that he doesnt exist

or at least not the god the catholic church told me to believe in so I would give them money

[Act_of_Reparation]

106. Context is important

It depends on how "god" or "gods" are being defined. There isn't one generalized position that is always appropriate to take under any and all circumstances.